IRSP back McCann & People Before Profit

[IrishWorker]

IRSP back McCann

Published Date: 27 April 2010
By Staff reporter
The IRSP in Derry have given their support to People Before Profit election candidate Eamonn McCann.
In the latest edition of the IRSP’s local newsletter , ‘Workers Republic,’ the party describes the veteran socialist as “the only credible alternative” and encouraged republican socialists to support Mr McCann.

“After analysing all the candidates in the Foyle constituency we were left with a choice similar to that of the voters on May 6th - to either back a candidate or abstain from the election,” the newsletter states.

“We decided following meetings within the party and then meetings with Eamonn that we would be giving our full support to his campaign. The primary reason is that, out of all of the candidates in this election, only Eamonn McCann offers a real working-class voice. All other parties standing will serve the interests of an all-class alliance that will ultimately betray the working class in favour of big business,” he said.

The IRSP currently do not stand in elections but individual members have been erecting posters and canvassing on behalf of Mr McCann.

http://www.derryjournal.com/politics/IRSP-back-McCann-.6254226.jp

[IrishWorker]

The IRSP have been at the core of calling for a united Irish socialist broad front the weekends solidarity with eirigi and the support of McCann and the PBP is exactly the type of thing that we need to see and only the start.

[Palingenisis]

Decomissioning I can understand was a tactical necesscity.

This comes pretty close to betrayal.

[IrishWorker]

Decomissioning I can understand was a tactical necesscity.

This comes pretty close to betrayal.

Yawn...

[We Shall Rise Again]

Its an interesting step by the IRSP, but not a new one as the party has been calling for an anti imperialist broad front since its foundation, and costello wrote a great article on this tactic way back at the start.

Personally i would be wary of the 'people before profit' who are an SWP electorial front.

I would be concered that if elected, Mc Cann would take his seat in westminister, which would be a retarding step for the struggle for national liberation.

No English Parliament has any right, nor juristicion in Ireland.

The socialist Republican party éirígí has taken a completly different approach to the current westminster election:

éirígí Statement on British General Election
09/04/10
With a Westminster election due to take place on May 6, éirígí wishes to take this opportunity to place its view of these elections on the public record.
In the policy paper ‘Elections, Elected Institutions and Ireland’s Revolutionary Struggle’, éirígí has already comprehensively outlined its view of the role that elections can play in the battle for Irish national and social freedom. That document states that “éirígí believes it is possible for a revolutionary party to move closer to its objectives by tactically contesting elections and tactically participating in specified elected institutions.”
With regard to the upcoming Westminster election, the question is, therefore, a tactical one, summed up with the simple question ‘Will the contesting of these elections bring Irish republicanism closer to, or further from, its objective?’
éirígí believes that the answer to this question lies in accurately assessing the objective strength of Irish republicanism at this point in its historic struggle. Without such an assessment, it is impossible to navigate the future direction of the republican struggle and the role that elections might, or might not, play in that struggle.
Irish republicanism has suffered a major defeat over the course of the last 15 years. For tens of thousands of Irish republicans, this period has been defined by disbelief, disappointment, frustration, anger and, all too often, despair. A once strong, confident Irish republicanism is now in a state of confusion, division and fragmentation.
The demand for Irish national reunification and independence has been removed from the political centre stage, only to be replaced by a petty sectarian squabble, with the British government happily acting as the arbitrator of the ‘settlement’. While it may be unpalatable to acknowledge this reality, that does not make it any less true.
It is éirígí’s view, however, that all is not lost. As a result of the determination and selfless work of political activists around the country, Irish republicanism is slowly emerging from this bleak period of its long and noble history.
But the process of rebuilding republicanism has, in historic terms, only just begun. It is a process that must have a bottom up approach and be centred in every working class community in Ireland. That is the only way that a new, radical republican movement, one that is capable of challenging the vested interests of occupation and exploitation, can emerge. This will be a long and arduous task; one that will take place out of the glare of the media spotlight. It will be a process that will often seem thankless and painfully slow-moving. But it is one that must be undertaken if republican objectives are to be secured.
This is the objective reality against which any republican participation in the upcoming Westminster elections must be evaluated. From its current position of weakness any republican participation in this election would, in éirígí’s opinion, be unwise.
Irish republicanism cannot afford to have its political agenda set by the elections of the political establishment. Participation in elections should only be considered from a position of relative strength, where the results are likely to advance the struggle and not retard it. For this reason, éirígí will not be contesting the forthcoming election, nor will it be supporting any non-éirígí republican candidates should they choose to stand.
Now is the time for republicans to focus on the process of rebuilding the ideas, the organisations and the wider movement that will bring about the victorious conclusion of the struggle for freedom and independence. For its part, éirígí will be continuing its work to repopularise the socialist republican message in working class communities and to nurture the still fragile green shoots of a resurgent Irish republicanism.''


éirígí are opposed to participation in westminster and stormont, however they would take seats on county councils or if they were elected to leinster house, the southren statlets 'parliament'

The IRSP, have also never been in favor of abstention as a republican priciple, and costello was correct when he said that a couple of revolutionary td's could show the southren state for what it was.

However I assumed the IRSP would also boycott westminster. Is this not the case?

while i disagree with the taking of seats in westminster, I agree with the IRSP that what is needed in Ireland is a Mass Movement of the working class, anti capitialist and anti imperialists to rebuild the republican movement, and continue the fight for national liberation and socialism,

[Zeus the Moose]

éirígí are opposed to participation in westminster and stormont, however they would take seats on county councils or if they were elected to leinster house, the southren statlets 'parliament'

The IRSP, have also never been in favor of abstention as a republican priciple, and costello was correct when he said that a couple of revolutionary td's could show the southren state for what it was.

However I assumed the IRSP would also boycott westminster. Is this not the case?

Thirty seconds into this video, there's a bit of a speech from Costello where he says that he sees "no reason why, with a few TDs or a few MPs of the right calibre, pursuing the right policies, they cannot destroy the confidence of the people in these institutions." That could be seen as Costello at least, if not the IRSP as a whole, endorsing a policy of taking seats in Westminster, at least on a tactical basis. On the other hand, it could just be advocacy of a policy similar to what Sinn Fein does today. I don't know enough about Costello's politics to say one way or the other, but it's something to consider.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyytiL75ELo

[Saorsa]

Decomissioning I can understand was a tactical necesscity.

This comes pretty close to betrayal.

How is this a betrayal at all?

[Palingenisis]

Yawn...

My Party right or wrong comrade?

In principle I have nothing against electoralism under certain conditions...But backing a sleazy popualist Trotskyite campaign? Come on...

[Saorsa]

It may have more to do with the fact that it's Eamonn McCann than that it's PBP.

[Palingenisis]

How is this a betrayal at all?

"People Before Profit" are basically the front group of the Socialist Workers Patrty which is an incredibly ultra-opportunist even by Trot standards group...Their platform avoids mention of class and socialism. Until the Labour Party had the deceny to drop "clause four" they advocated voting for them despite their over seeing brutal wars to defend various colonies.

[Palingenisis]

We need to refound something along the lines of the Communist Partry of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist), Revolutionary Struggle and Larkin's Revolutionary Worker's League. We need at least the seed of a Leninist vanguard Party.

[Palingenisis]

It may have more to do with the fact that it's Eamonn McCann than that it's PBP.

We are not in the 1970s...Loyality to personality over principle has done untold damage to the Irish working class and the cause of national liberation.

[IrishWorker]

My Party right or wrong comrade?

In principle I have nothing against electoralism under certain conditions...But backing a sleazy popualist Trotskyite campaign? Come on...

Well you keep your left wing sectarianism and I will support a candidate who stands against religious sectarianism.
A non religious sectarian candidate in an election in the occupied six counties who is a socialist and you dont support him?
Mc Cann is a progressive who Marxists and Trots can both use as a platform for their politics and establish the broad front.

[IrishWorker]

Its an interesting step by the IRSP, but not a new one as the party has been calling for an anti imperialist broad front since its foundation, and costello wrote a great article on this tactic way back at the start.

Personally i would be wary of the 'people before profit' who are an SWP electorial front.

I would be concered that if elected, Mc Cann would take his seat in westminister, which would be a retarding step for the struggle for national liberation.

No English Parliament has any right, nor juristicion in Ireland.

The socialist Republican party éirígí has taken a completly different approach to the current westminster election:

éirígí Statement on British General Election
09/04/10
With a Westminster election due to take place on May 6, éirígí wishes to take this opportunity to place its view of these elections on the public record.
In the policy paper ‘Elections, Elected Institutions and Ireland’s Revolutionary Struggle’, éirígí has already comprehensively outlined its view of the role that elections can play in the battle for Irish national and social freedom. That document states that “éirígí believes it is possible for a revolutionary party to move closer to its objectives by tactically contesting elections and tactically participating in specified elected institutions.”
With regard to the upcoming Westminster election, the question is, therefore, a tactical one, summed up with the simple question ‘Will the contesting of these elections bring Irish republicanism closer to, or further from, its objective?’
éirígí believes that the answer to this question lies in accurately assessing the objective strength of Irish republicanism at this point in its historic struggle. Without such an assessment, it is impossible to navigate the future direction of the republican struggle and the role that elections might, or might not, play in that struggle.
Irish republicanism has suffered a major defeat over the course of the last 15 years. For tens of thousands of Irish republicans, this period has been defined by disbelief, disappointment, frustration, anger and, all too often, despair. A once strong, confident Irish republicanism is now in a state of confusion, division and fragmentation.
The demand for Irish national reunification and independence has been removed from the political centre stage, only to be replaced by a petty sectarian squabble, with the British government happily acting as the arbitrator of the ‘settlement’. While it may be unpalatable to acknowledge this reality, that does not make it any less true.
It is éirígí’s view, however, that all is not lost. As a result of the determination and selfless work of political activists around the country, Irish republicanism is slowly emerging from this bleak period of its long and noble history.
But the process of rebuilding republicanism has, in historic terms, only just begun. It is a process that must have a bottom up approach and be centred in every working class community in Ireland. That is the only way that a new, radical republican movement, one that is capable of challenging the vested interests of occupation and exploitation, can emerge. This will be a long and arduous task; one that will take place out of the glare of the media spotlight. It will be a process that will often seem thankless and painfully slow-moving. But it is one that must be undertaken if republican objectives are to be secured.
This is the objective reality against which any republican participation in the upcoming Westminster elections must be evaluated. From its current position of weakness any republican participation in this election would, in éirígí’s opinion, be unwise.
Irish republicanism cannot afford to have its political agenda set by the elections of the political establishment. Participation in elections should only be considered from a position of relative strength, where the results are likely to advance the struggle and not retard it. For this reason, éirígí will not be contesting the forthcoming election, nor will it be supporting any non-éirígí republican candidates should they choose to stand.
Now is the time for republicans to focus on the process of rebuilding the ideas, the organisations and the wider movement that will bring about the victorious conclusion of the struggle for freedom and independence. For its part, éirígí will be continuing its work to repopularise the socialist republican message in working class communities and to nurture the still fragile green shoots of a resurgent Irish republicanism.''


éirígí are opposed to participation in westminster and stormont, however they would take seats on county councils or if they were elected to leinster house, the southren statlets 'parliament'

The IRSP, have also never been in favor of abstention as a republican priciple, and costello was correct when he said that a couple of revolutionary td's could show the southren state for what it was.

However I assumed the IRSP would also boycott westminster. Is this not the case?

while i disagree with the taking of seats in westminster, I agree with the IRSP that what is needed in Ireland is a Mass Movement of the working class, anti capitialist and anti imperialists to rebuild the republican movement, and continue the fight for national liberation and socialism,

Building alliances and establishing Irish socialist cooperation through a broad front is essential things here are only going to get worse sectarian bickering within the left must be destroyed "let the banks burn"

[The Grey Blur]

Well a few issues pop up here:

1) The IRSP backing PBP, and McCann. This I think is a good step on the IRSP's part, the PBP campaign isn't perfect but it is at least a left alternative to the sectarian pro-business parties. From efforts like this we can look to a serious, labour-based political alternative to be created in Ireland and specifically in the North.

2) PBP themselves. Yes, they are the SWP plus a smattering of liberals. Yes we all know of the opportunism of the SWP, evidenced in this case by the fact they've dropped any talk of 'Socialism' under zero pressure in this campaign. No I don't think PBP is the basis for a mass working-class alternative but it is an expression of a beginning fightback.

3) Abstentionism. Socialists can and should campaign for election to bourgeois parliaments, as a method of propaganda etc, obviously they should only accept a worker's wage and should be accountable to the party and the working class that supports them. I think this is a very very old debate and you either accept elections as a tool or you can stick to ultra-left/republican principles.

All in all, I think this is a positive step, on the IRSP's part and more generally with regards to the PBP campaign.

[We Shall Rise Again]

Well a few issues pop up here:

1) The IRSP backing PBP, and McCann. This I think is a good step on the IRSP's part, the PBP campaign isn't perfect but it is at least a left alternative to the sectarian pro-business parties. From efforts like this we can look to a serious, labour-based political alternative to be created in Ireland and specifically in the North.

2) PBP themselves. Yes, they are the SWP plus a smattering of liberals. Yes we all know of the opportunism of the SWP, evidenced in this case by the fact they've dropped any talk of 'Socialism' under zero pressure in this campaign. No I don't think PBP is the basis for a mass working-class alternative but it is an expression of a beginning fightback.

3) Abstentionism. Socialists can and should campaign for election to bourgeois parliaments, as a method of propaganda etc, obviously they should only accept a worker's wage and should be accountable to the party and the working class that supports them. I think this is a very very old debate and you either accept elections as a tool or you can stick to ultra-left/republican principles.

All in all, I think this is a positive step, on the IRSP's part and more generally with regards to the PBP campaign.

There is a thrid option.
socialist republicans should seek election to bodies which recognise the sovereignty of the Irish People, but should continue to abstain from british parliaments, which offer nothing to the Irish working class.

[The Grey Blur]

I think that's a very dodgy way of putting it...what does a parliament of the Irish bourgeois as opposed to that of the British offer the Irish working class exactly? I think you're putting the nation before class. Whether they fly a tricolour above the building doesn't make it any less flawed and bourgeois a government.

[Palingenisis]

I think that's a very dodgy way of putting it...what does a parliament of the Irish bourgeois as opposed to that of the British offer the Irish working class exactly? I think you're putting the nation before class. Whether they fly a tricolour above the building doesn't make it any less flawed and bourgeois a government.

Better than betraying both nation and class by supporting the CWI or the IMT!

[Palingenisis]

There is a thrid option.
socialist republicans should seek election to bodies which recognise the sovereignty of the Irish People, but should continue to abstain from british parliaments, which offer nothing to the Irish working class.

The point of revolutionaires participating in capitalist parliments is to expose those insituations for what they are...If the vast majiority of working class realise that they are basically talking shops without any real power what is the point in participating in elections? Surely our job is create and sustain independent working class power and to prepare the ground for a sucessful peoples' war?

[We Shall Rise Again]

I think that's a very dodgy way of putting it...what does a parliament of the Irish bourgeois as opposed to that of the British offer the Irish working class exactly? I think you're putting the nation before class. Whether they fly a tricolour above the building doesn't make it any less flawed and bourgeois a government.

what can the Irish working class get from a british imperial class?

i have no love for leinster house, but understand it can be used as a platform to advance socialism,

the same cannot be said for westmister, as participation there only retards the struggle for national liberation and socialism.

[Palingenisis]

the same cannot be said for westmister, as participation there only retards the struggle for national liberation and socialism.

Elections and Trade Unions are useless for achieving either.

The only people I know who have faith in either the Dail, Stormount or the present day Liberty hall are idiotic leftists...Our job as Marxists is not to breathe back faith into these capitalist insituations but to give people hope in themselves as a class.

[The Grey Blur]

the same cannot be said for westmister, as participation there only retards the struggle for national liberation and socialism.
In concrete terms; how?


what can the Irish working class get from a british imperial classWell not much, but historically reforms have been won from the participation in the British bourgeois electoral system, to take the reforms achieved by the Civil Rights movement as an example. If we reach a stage where heightened class consciousness results in socialists being elected in Northern Ireland then they're sure as hell going to be elected in Britain too, resulting in a further erosion of Imperial power. If you extend your logic then we shouldn't advocate that socialists use bourgeois elections in the US either as their multi-nationals are the major imperialist force (certainly in the Free State) in Ireland today.

[Sam_b]

I think its a great step that IRSP comrades are supporting Eamonn McCann's campaign. Although not a perfect platform, Eamonn has a consistent record as a class fighter and and anti-war, anti-imperialist candidate - his work as part of the Raytheon Nine stands testament to this.

I would remind comrades who are arguing for abstentionism not only of Costello's arguments here, but also the example of Bernadette Devlin who sat in Parliament under no illusions that fundamental change would come, but as a platform for socialist and republican ideas. This went hand in hand with her defence of the residents and people during the battle of the Bogside as well as playing a role in founding the IRSP.

[Palingenisis]

I think its a great step that IRSP comrades are supporting Eamonn McCann's campaign. Although not a perfect platform, Eamonn has a consistent record as a class fighter.

Eamonn Mc Cann might have been something once but the reality is that he didnt choose to join either the IRSP, Revolutionary Struggle or the Communist Party of Ireland- Marxist-Leninist. Hardly any of half copped on working people have any faith in the glorified county councils that is Stormount and the Dail or Westminster. This is a waste of time and energy at best, revisionism at worst.

[Sam_b]

So your argument basically summounts to "He didn't join any of the political parties I approve off, thus he is worthless".

[Palingenisis]

So your argument basically summounts to "He didn't join any of the political parties I approve off, thus he is worthless".

He choose to seperate from both the vanguard and effectively the mass movement while trading off his reputation from the late 60s, early 70s...We as a class need desperately here to seriously learn from our past mistakes aswell as what has worked in other countries...But we are doing neither.

[Palingenisis]

I would remind comrades who are arguing for abstentionism not only of Costello's arguments here, but also the example of Bernadette Devlin who sat in Parliament under no illusions that fundamental change would come, but as a platform for socialist and republican ideas. This went hand in hand with her defence of the residents and people during the battle of the Bogside as well as playing a role in founding the IRSP.

Seamus Costello's argument for partcipating in parliments was that the confidence of the working class could be destoried in these insituations...If there is no confidence in them in the first place to destory what is the point in playing the game?

[Sam_b]

I don't think its correct to summount that there is the same mass movement that we had in the 60s and 70s anywhere, more still one that is homogenous; so I don't think this carries much weight at all.

TBH I have no idea of McCann's reputation from this period either. As far as tactics go, we need to look for something that works. Ergo abstentionism has to be seen as a political tactic. How has it worked in Westminster, and when? Does it bring any more or less confidence to the class that these imperialist institutions can be brought to their knees? If so, do you disagree with Costello's rhetoric as seen in the video linked?

I'm not in this thread particularly to exert a concrete opinion or line, i'm genuinely interested here and there ae of course huge gaps in my Irish history and politics.

[Palingenisis]

I'm not in this thread particularly to exert a concrete opinion or line, i'm genuinely interested here and there ae of course huge gaps in my Irish history and politics.

Costello was arguing against the reactionary legalism of traditional Irish Republicianism (the type that will still argue today that the Continuity Arny Council is the legitimate goverment of Ireland to whom we all owe alligence) for a Leninist position (revolutionaires participate in capitalist parliments in order to destory the people's confidence in them)...The point is not a Republican "purism" for absentionism, the point is that working class people already dont see these insituations as having any real power...So why are so-called Marxists playing into the hands of the electoral fraud if thats the case? By doing so the IRSP is departing from Leninism and moving towards outright reformist and social-chauvanist currents such as Trotskyism and "Euro-Communism".

[Sam_b]

This is simply rhetoric. If working class people were to en masse abstain from such practice then fair enough, however huge swathes of the class still exercise their vote. Like it o not our relationship with such institutions has to be strategic and tactical, and of course justified. From what I've seen, abstentionism has not been justified on a tactical basis.

But i'm taking most of your comments with a pinch of salt after Trotskyism apparently being 'social-chauvenist'.

[Palingenisis]

This is simply rhetoric. If working class people were to en masse abstain from such practice then fair enough, however huge swathes of the class still exercise their vote. Like it o not our relationship with such institutions has to be strategic and tactical, and of course justified. From what I've seen, abstentionism has not been justified on a tactical basis.

But i'm taking most of your comments with a pinch of salt after Trotskyism apparently being 'social-chauvenist'.

Most working class people under 35 dont vote in the Free State/26 counties...Electoral politics in the 6 counties is based around getting stuff for "your" community at the expense of the other but anyway everyone realises that anyone elected from there has very little power. Even if people do vote they realise its almost worthless...What is needed is Maoism, a geniune vanguard that will lay the base for the seizure of power by ordinary working people. Neither Mc Cann or it seems the IRSP can supply that.

[Crux]

This is simply rhetoric. If working class people were to en masse abstain from such practice then fair enough, however huge swathes of the class still exercise their vote. Like it o not our relationship with such institutions has to be strategic and tactical, and of course justified. From what I've seen, abstentionism has not been justified on a tactical basis.

But i'm taking most of your comments with a pinch of salt after Trotskyism apparently being 'social-chauvenist'.
Well yeah, it's a shame we couldn't come to an agreement in Ireland prior to the local elections. However, as in Brittain, the SWP needs to make up their mind on Labour (and Sinn Fein). But yeah, hopefully we can build a broad left alliance, well not only that but mass new workers party, in ireland in the future.

[Sam_b]

I think a lot of the disagreements on standing come from the CWI's open letter to the SWP Ireland some years ago, with numerous responses from both sides, rightly or wrongly.

TBH I don't think our position on Labour is completely alien to that of your tendency in Britain, in regards to voting for left-of-labour candidates where possible.

[Proletarian Ultra]

There is a thrid option.
socialist republicans should seek election to bodies which recognise the sovereignty of the Irish People, but should continue to abstain from british parliaments, which offer nothing to the Irish working class.

You think the Blueshirt/corruptionist talking shop in the Free State recognizes the sovereignty of the Irish people?

[Jolly Red Giant]

We need to refound something along the lines of the Communist Partry of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist), Revolutionary Struggle and Larkin's Revolutionary Worker's League. We need at least the seed of a Leninist vanguard Party.
To start with there is absolutely no comparison (even remotely) between the the CPI(ML) and Larkin's Irish Workers League. To suggest that the Hoxhaists would have anything politically in common with Larkin is really stretching the imagination.

In all honesty the CPI(ML) even at his high point in the early 1980's was a minor distraction for a handful of students from wealthy backgrounds when they were going through the rebellious phase.

[BOZG]

Better than betraying both nation and class by supporting the CWI or the IMT!

The highlighted word pretty much somes you up.

[Palingenisis]

In all honesty the CPI(ML) even at his high point in the early 1980's was a minor distraction for a handful of students from wealthy backgrounds when they were going through the rebellious phase.

Yeah and the Irps are violent nutters and the 32 county sovergeinity movement is sectarian...:rolleyes:

"I considered the CPI(ML) back in the 80′s (and now) to have been principled communists who had not bought in to the eurocommunist illusion of peacefully co-existing with imperialism. Most of them were Irish – in fact their publications such as ‘Marxist-Leninist Weekly’ frequently contained articles in the Irish language.
I disagreed with their ultra-leftist characterisation of the USSR as a ‘social-imperialist’ state. Still, they were held in some regard by a number of republicans as they were unafraid to show support to our movement at a time when no other group on the pseudo-’left’ did so."

An ex-POW.

[MarkP]

If you are arguing with Palingenisis in this thread, surely you could find a more productive use of your time, like peeling all the skin off your own face with a scalpel?

[Andropov]

Decomissioning I can understand was a tactical necesscity.

This comes pretty close to betrayal.
Idiocy.
Have a look over the candidates running in the Foyle constituency, Stoops, Chucks and an asortment of Unionists and Bigots and of course Mc Cann.
Even though I disagree with him fundamentally on numerous issues and especially the SWP but I still respect Mc Cann because he is genuine and has actually campaigned tirelessly for the working class in Derry.
He is the best out of a bad lot and an excellent opportunity to break the sectarian grip PSF and DUP have over the voting patterns.
Obviously this will not herald a working class emancipation but it will help weaken our foes and give a Socialist a platform to disrupt the Status Quo's hegemony within the chambers of power.
It will give us not only an opportunity to do this but to also forward Working class politics and working class issues in Parliamentary Chambers which carry much public attention and influence.
Costello did not just argue for the use of Parliamentaryism to sabotage these institutions from within but to give our politics a platform with much public attention and forward our politics also.
This is not "betrayal" and using such emotive language to describe a wise tactical move is akin to the Contos and the rest of those fantacists.

[Andropov]

Irish republicanism cannot afford to have its political agenda set by the elections of the political establishment. Participation in elections should only be considered from a position of relative strength, where the results are likely to advance the struggle and not retard it. For this reason, éirígí will not be contesting the forthcoming election, nor will it be supporting any non-éirígí republican candidates should they choose to stand.
I do not understand Eirigi's position at all.
I do not understand why we should only contest elections "from a position of strenght"?
Also what do they define as "a position of strenght"?
I also fail to realise how the differentiate between the Free State Dail and Westminister to the point where they will refuse to challenge the Westminister establishment?
I also fail to see how contesting Westminister Elections will translate into having "its political agenda set by the elections of the political establishment"?
TBH the whole justifications for not contesting Westminister Elections smacks of absolute nonsense and something im surprised about, Eirigi normally call these shots right.

[Andropov]

On the other hand, it could just be advocacy of a policy similar to what Sinn Fein does today. I don't know enough about Costello's politics to say one way or the other, but it's something to consider.
An example of his tactics in the Chambers of Power was when he was sitting on Bray Council.
In one sitting he marched in every homeless person from the sreets of Bray and demanded housing for them then and there, he was thus ejected out of the Chamber and the other Councillors did there level best to remove him permanently.
A simple action to raise awareness of the povert of society and the contradictions that breadth it.
Somewhat different to PSF's neo-liberal policys in Stormont.

[Andropov]

Eamonn Mc Cann might have been something once but the reality is that he didnt choose to join either the IRSP.
He did try to join in the 70's however he was refused membership by the IRSP.

[Palingenisis]

He did try to join in the 70's however he was refused membership by the IRSP.

Why?

[Andropov]

Why?
Party Leadership saw it as an attempt by Trots to infiltrate the movement and so refused him membership

[Jolly Red Giant]

Yeah and the Irps are violent nutters and the 32 county sovergeinity movement is sectarian...:rolleyes:

"I considered the CPI(ML) back in the 80′s (and now) to have been principled communists who had not bought in to the eurocommunist illusion of peacefully co-existing with imperialism. Most of them were Irish – in fact their publications such as ‘Marxist-Leninist Weekly’ frequently contained articles in the Irish language.
I disagreed with their ultra-leftist characterisation of the USSR as a ‘social-imperialist’ state. Still, they were held in some regard by a number of republicans as they were unafraid to show support to our movement at a time when no other group on the pseudo-’left’ did so."

An ex-POW.

The CPI(ML) were a bunch of spoofers - they never had more than a dozen or so members practically all of whom came from well off backgrounds and who are now well up the academic ladder or have substantial personal wealth. And they never did anything except engage in cheerleading for the IRA and writing some off the wall articles for 'Red Patriot' and the other newsletters that came after it.

The CPI(ML) was founded in 1965 by Hardial Bains who was from a wealthy Indian family who were members of the Communist Party of India. Bains was working as a microbiologist in Trinity College and while there he recruited a couple of students he was lecturing, David Vipond and John Williams. Vipond was from a wealthy British family and is now an independent pharmaceutical consultant. Williams was from a wealthy family in West Clare and also graduated as a chemist. He is now one of the largest property owners in the Mid-West.

After Vipond and Williams graduated (Bains had returned to work in Canada) the CPI(ML) disappeared for a number of years until it managed to recruit a student in Bolton Street College, Brendan Doris. Doris again from a well-off background, later became president of the Union of Students in Ireland. Last I heard he was working as a butcher (but that was some time ago). He did appear in the audience on a TV programme a number of years ago claiming that the RIRA were the only 'true patriots'. Doris recruited a handful of other prominent student activists including Tommy Graham a mechanical engineering graduate in Bolton Street who was again from a wealthy family background. Graham later enrolled in Trinity to study medieval history and is now a prominent academic and editor of 'History Ireland'. Brian Stone followed Graham as president of Bolton Street SU. Another student from a comfortable background who is now an academic in DCU. Among the other members was Jim Roche who's father was president of Cork Institute of Technology.

The entire party during it official near 40 year existance (it dissolved after many years of doing nothing in 2003) had as much influence and impact
as a fart on a pig farm.

(Just for clarification - I claimed the INLA were nutjobs - and yes the 32CSM are sectarians).

[Jolly Red Giant]

Party Leadership saw it as an attempt by Trots to infiltrate the movement and so refused him membership
This either is one of the :laugh: of the day or demonstrates how far off the wall McCanns perspectives were.

[Andropov]

(Just for clarification - I claimed the INLA were nutjobs).
You have yet to provide names of these "lunatics" and "nutjobs" that you know and indeed live beside?

[Andropov]

This either is one of the :laugh: of the day or demonstrates how far off the wall McCanns perspectives were.
Would you care to expand or just continue to post your inane one liner drivel?

[MarkP]

Party Leadership saw it as an attempt by Trots to infiltrate the movement and so refused him membership

McCann wasn't in a Trotskyist organisation in the 1970s, so if he applied to join the IRSP it wasn't as part of any organisation's strategy to infiltrate anything.

I have never heard before that McCann applied to join, and I suspect that you may be mixing him up with his later associates in the SWM (now SWP). The SWM did very seriously consider joining the IRSP in its early days. However they were not refused entry by the IRSP, their own members voted against merging with the IRSP at their conference. Thereby making sure that all of their members retained their fingers and weren't otherwise maimed or murdered by psychopathic or criminal "comrades" in the long years of bloody mayhem and futility which lay ahead for the IRSP.

McCann was not in the SWM at that point.

[MarkP]

The CPI(ML) were dogmatic lunatics whose publications read as if they were badly translated from the Chinese (or later Albanian) originals by Google. Ahead of their time in that regard, I suppose you could argue.

In fact Irish "Anti-Revisionism" has always been a salted nut factory. The other main group that milieu produced was the British and Irish Communist Organisation, the less said about which the better.

[Palingenisis]

Would you care to expand or just continue to post your inane one liner drivel?

An English Revolutionary Communist said this about JollyRedGiant in the RepublicanSocialist group here...

"Irish Trots like this guy are the worst. Ultra-leftist pro-imperialist traiters."

He is a pro-Imperialist traitor most certainly...But calling the Socialist Party ultra-leftist is way off.

[Palingenisis]

In fact Irish "Anti-Revisionism" has always been a salted nut factory. The other main group that milieu produced was the British and Irish Communist Organisation, the less said about which the better.

However much I disagree with his stand point on things both than and now Brendan Clifford is an interesting and often insightful writer/historian who always makes you think. Sometimes Trots arent great on. Much easier to call be nuts, "sectarian", etc.

[Andropov]

McCann wasn't in a Trotskyist organisation in the 1970s
I never claimed he was.

so if he applied to join the IRSP it wasn't as part of any organisation's strategy to infiltrate anything.
I never claimed any organisation planned to infiltrate the IRSP.

I have never heard before that McCann applied to join, and I suspect that you may be mixing him up with his later associates in the SWM (now SWP). The SWM did very seriously consider joining the IRSP in its early days. However they were not refused entry by the IRSP, their own members voted against merging with the IRSP at their conference.
Im not refering to the SWM.
I was only refering to Mc Cann so your summary there on the SWM is irrelevant.

Thereby making sure that all of their members retained their fingers
Are you claiming that members of the IRSM upon membership lose their fingers? Absurd.

and weren't otherwise maimed or murdered by psychopathic
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to these "psychopathic comrades"?
Also you will find that every feud that the INLA were involved in was actually as a defensive measure, the IRSM was attacked by the Sticks, the INLA was attacked by IPLO etc etc.
Odd that you find Republican Socialists defending their very existance as so repugnant?

or criminal "comrades" in the long years of bloody mayhem and futility which lay ahead for the IRSP.
Any instances of criminality found within the ranks of the IRSM was immediately removed or faced more extreme forms of action.

McCann was not in the SWM at that point.
Never claimed that he was.

I can read these cute little soundbites from any Paul Williams article, so when your ready you can start attacking the movement from a Material Marxist perspective.

[MarkP]

However much I disagree with his stand point on things both than and now Brendan Clifford is an interesting and often insightful writer/historian who always makes you think. Sometimes Trots arent great on. Much easier to call be nuts, "sectarian", etc.

The BICO produced strike bulletins for the Ulster Workers Council strike, which is just about the dictionary definition of fucking crazy. They also argued that people like you were fascists who needed to be shot. They opposed the miner's strike and supported the EU and Britain's possession of nuclear weapons.

Somehow I'm not surprised that someone as thorougly dimwitted as yourself is impressed by them.

[Palingenisis]

The BICO produced strike bulletins for the Ulster Workers Council strike, which is just about the dictionary definition of fucking crazy. They also argued that people like you were fascists who needed to be shot. They opposed the miner's strike and supported the EU and Britain's possession of nuclear weapons.

Somehow I'm not surprised that someone as thorougly dimwitted as yourself is impressed by them.

Yeah they were over the top to put it mildly but that doesnt make Brendan Clifford and particularly the Aurbane Historical Society today less interesting.

The Communist Party of Ireland Marxist-Leninist produced unsurpassed writings on the Ireland's English problemn which continue to illumine the pathway towards socialism and national liberation for all working class, progressive and patriotic forces here.

Trots though just like throwing cheap insults rather than actually thinking, you lot certainly havent fallen from the original tree.

[Jolly Red Giant]

You have yet to provide names of these "lunatics" and "nutjobs" that you know and indeed live beside?
As I said before - I value my aging kneecaps, and make no apology for it.


faced more extreme forms of action.
Kind of proves my point.



He is a pro-Imperialist traitor most certainly...But calling the Socialist Party ultra-leftist is way off.
I take it you have nothing to say about the detail provided to show that the CPI(ML) were a bunch of rich kids going through a rebellous student phase.



The Communist Party of Ireland Marxist-Leninist produced unsurpassed writings on the Ireland's English problemn which continue to illumine the pathway towards socialism and national liberation for all working class, progressive and patriotic forces here.

The CPI(ML) had pretty much a one-paragraph position on 'Ireland's English problem' (although shouldn't it be 'British' problem) which they repeated ad-infinitum for years on end. The stuff the wrote in the mid-60's was pretty much word for word exactly the same 25 years later.

By the way - the CPI(ML) used to hurl abuse at BICO in part by calling them 'Trotskyite'.

[MarkP]

I never claimed he was.

I never claimed any organisation planned to infiltrate the IRSP.

You reported that the IRSP leadership thought that McCann was part of some Trotskyist infiltration plot. Presumably even they weren't crazy enough to think that such infiltration could be carried out without organisation and planning. Or perhaps they thought that Trotskyists were going to coordinate their infiltration by using psychic powers rather than organisation?


Are you claiming that members of the IRSM upon membership lose their fingers?

I am saying that the IRSM contained a range of criminals and psychopaths in its ranks, at least one of whom was prone to chopping off people's fingers.


Perhaps you could enlighten me as to these "psychopathic comrades"?

You've never heard of Steenson, McGlinchey, O'Hare etc? Or do you think that they got nicknames like Dr Death and Mad Dog because of their personal charm and fondness for puppies? How about the "heroic" killer of Billy Wright, who was in prison for murdering a nightclub doorman? Or Hugh "Cueball" Tormey? Or...


Also you will find that every feud that the INLA were involved in was actually as a defensive measure, the IRSM was attacked by the Sticks, the INLA was attacked by IPLO etc etc.

Self-justifying drivel. The feuds mostly began as squabbles over arms caches, personal power or (occasionally) strategy. In them all factions murdered indiscriminately - the bit of the IRSM you now portray as innocent victims managed to murder a nine year old girl in one particularly memorable feud.


Any instances of criminality found within the ranks of the IRSM was immediately removed or faced more extreme forms of action.

This is a complete, unadulterated, lie. It is a brazenly stupid lie as well because it isn't even the official IRSP view of its own past. Even the IRSM itself acknowledges which is that some terrible things were done and apolitical gangster elements found a home in the movement. It just claims that all of that is in the past now.

Here is the official IRSM line on this:

"The days of using this movement as a flag of convenience for personal gain are gone. The days of bullying working class youth are gone. The days of policing working class communities are gone. Those things were never on the agenda of the Republican Socialist Movement but unfortunately some scum floated towards the top of this movement in the past"

You'd be better off sticking to the "that's all in the past, trust us, really" approach rather than just trying to lie your past away.


Material Marxist perspective.

Big words for an Irp. I'm almost impressed.

[Soldier of life]

You reported that the IRSP leadership thought that McCann was part of some Trotskyist infiltration plot. Presumably even they weren't crazy enough to think that such infiltration could be carried out without organisation and planning. Or perhaps they thought that Trotskyists were going to coordinate their infiltration by using psychic powers rather than organisation?

I'm aware of this. McCann was met with suspicion alright. He not only applied to join but people who were basically supporters of his. The IRSP I believe were actually willing to take him in, however one prerequisite was that the leadership must give the OK to political articles he were to publish, because they were sceptical about his ideology. McCann refused this and in the end the IRSP rejected his membership.




I am saying that the IRSM contained a range of criminals and psychopaths in its ranks, at least one of whom was prone to chopping off people's fingers.

Psychopaths? That is just utter rubbish and capitalist propaganda. And as regards chopping someones finger off, some revolutionaries actually have the balls to walk the walk and take part in a war against imperialism, rather than posting online about it. Dessie was part of a war effort, and for all intents and purposes was a great revolutionary, alledged to have taken out over 20 members of the Brit armed forces. Sorry if revolutionary action doesnt appeal to your liberal sensibilities.




You've never heard of Steenson, McGlinchey, O'Hare etc? Or do you think that they got nicknames like Dr Death and Mad Dog because of their personal charm and fondness for puppies? How about the "heroic" killer of Billy Wright, who was in prison for murdering a nightclub doorman? Or Hugh "Cueball" Tormey? Or...

This is actually hilarious, you are just repeating Sunday World garbage. Just to show you how wrong you are, the state actually made Dessie be analysed psychologically...more than once, and each time he passed without problems. Just because our capitalist enemies tar us as something doesn't mean we are you know, it says everything about you that all you can do is echo the gutter capitalist press, some leftist. And Bertie Ahern actually tried to link Dessie with major Dublin drug dealer marlo hyland, when confronted about this by the IRSM the gardai even acknowledged it was a load of rubbish. And as for MCGlinchey, he was called Mad dog...by capitalist media, I'm starting to see a pattern develop here, it's like someone quoting Israeli media or intelligence on the PFLP for fucks sake, embarrassing.




Self-justifying drivel. The feuds mostly began as squabbles over arms caches, personal power or (occasionally) strategy. In them all factions murdered indiscriminately - the bit of the IRSM you now portray as innocent victims managed to murder a nine year old girl in one particularly memorable feud.

How do you know? Because you read it in the media :lol:

And as for the wee girl, the volunteer in question was so disturbed by what happened he killed himself, weird for a supposed psychopath. They were attempting to kill someone who had murdered a member of the IRSM, he was a little drug dealing hood hired to do just that. In a war, you defend your membership, and unfortunately tragedies may occur from time to time, that is the sad reality of war, something I'd say you know fuck all about, apart from what you read in the Sunday World. The INLA did not mean to kill the child obviously it was a tragic incident and one where sadly two lives were lost where hte volunteer was overcome with grief and killed himself.




This is a complete, unadulterated, lie. It is a brazenly stupid lie as well because it isn't even the official IRSP view of its own past. Even the IRSM itself acknowledges which is that some terrible things were done and apolitical gangster elements found a home in the movement. It just claims that all of that is in the past now.

Here is the official IRSM line on this:

"The days of using this movement as a flag of convenience for personal gain are gone. The days of bullying working class youth are gone. The days of policing working class communities are gone. Those things were never on the agenda of the Republican Socialist Movement but unfortunately some scum floated towards the top of this movement in the past"

You'd be better off sticking to the "that's all in the past, trust us, really" approach rather than just trying to lie your past away.

No-one is denying that some shadowy elements were part of the INLA at points, it is the nature of these types of organisations, the real test of a movement is how you deal with those elements. And as you can see the INLA came through this period and those who had abused the INLA had action taken against them...how clearer a policy can you get than that, and it was evident recently in the approach to Declan Duffy who by all accounts is lucky he went to jail.




Big words for an Irp. I'm almost impressed.

Good one?

Seems the only things you know about politics you learn from gutter journalism. I'm sorry your liberal sensibilities were aggravated by people who actually had the balls to risk their lives for their politics, the INLA engaged imperialism and capitalism head on. Keep to typing on a forum and subscribing to Paul Williams:thumbup1:

[Hoggy_RS]

You've never heard of Steenson, McGlinchey, O'Hare etc? Or do you think that they got nicknames like Dr Death and Mad Dog because of their personal charm and fondness for puppies? How about the "heroic" killer of Billy Wright, who was in prison for murdering a nightclub doorman? Or Hugh "Cueball" Tormey? Or...




Does it still hurt that ye lost one of yer former comrades to the INLA?http://www.revleft.com/vb/progressive-unionist-party-t114963/index.html

CWI'ers haven't much scope for attacking the IRSM when they weren't so long ago supporting loyalism. I can tell you from experience in the SP, that there was still many members in the party who actively promoted the idea of getting loyalists(and at a meeting there was talk of disillusioned DUP members) to join the party. On the flip side of things there was lengthy discussions on how protesting against the british army was apparently sectarian.

You can stick your trotskyism right up yer arse.

[Soldier of life]

Does it still hurt that ye lost one of yer former comrades to the INLA?http://www.revleft.com/vb/progressive-unionist-party-t114963/index.html

CWI'ers haven't much scope for attacking the IRSM when they weren't so long ago supporting loyalism. I can tell you from experience in the SP, that there was still many members in the party who actively promoted the idea of getting loyalists(and at a meeting there was talk of disillusioned DUP members) to join the party. On the flip side of things there was lengthy discussions on how protesting against the british army was apparently sectarian.

You can stick your trotskyism right up yer arse.

The difference between our gripes with such organisations and their gripes with us is that ours are based on political facts that they cannot deny, while theirs is based on whatever the special branch feed Paul Williams for his next article.

[Andropov]

You reported that the IRSP leadership thought that McCann was part of some Trotskyist infiltration plot. Presumably even they weren't crazy enough to think that such infiltration could be carried out without organisation and planning. Or perhaps they thought that Trotskyists were going to coordinate their infiltration by using psychic powers rather than organisation?
SOL summed it up for you there.

I am saying that the IRSM contained a range of criminals and psychopaths in its ranks, at least one of whom was prone to chopping off people's fingers.
Yes he did, in an expropriation.
So what?
Revolutionarys arent to be held to some decadent bourgeois sensibilities that you hold, they must adapt to the context they find themselves in.

You've never heard of Steenson,
Steenson was ruthless, no doubt about it.
In many ways he was a liability to the movement but given the context the INLA found itself in it would be wholey unrealistic to think that certain elements would never be included in its membership.
To hold the utopian ideal that no degenerate members would ever gain entry during its 40 year history is just idiocy.
Its context was within the working class ghettos of Belfast, Strabane, Derry etc and as such its memebrship was comprised of these individuals from the communitys.
It of course was not immune to some of the social ills these communitys faced and as such we can only judge how the INLA reacted to instances of social deviance within its ranks.

McGlinchey,
A solid Republican Socialist and a credit to the movement.

O'Hare etc?
Yet again another solid Republican Socialist demonised by the Bourgeois press and the establishment.
FFS Berti Ahern even stated that he was involved with Marlo Hyland in the Dail but even the Gaurds had to distance themselves from that remark in all its idiocy because O'Hare was doing charity work in lourdes with Mentall Disabled kids.
But that doesnt fit nicely into your bourgeois reactionary stereotyping of solid Republican Socialists who shed blood and put their lives on the line for their politics.

Or do you think that they got nicknames like Dr Death and Mad Dog because of their personal charm and fondness for puppies?
From the Bourgeois media outlets constantly out to ridicule and undermine the IRSM of course only for Bourgeois sympathising degenerates such as yourself to regurgitate out in your bile.

Self-justifying drivel.
Matters of historical fact.
The OIRA attacked the IRSM, IPLO attacked the IRSM.

The feuds mostly began as squabbles over arms caches, personal power or (occasionally) strategy.
The majority of feuds started when an opposing group attempted to wipe them out, like I said matters of historical fact.

In them all factions murdered indiscriminately - the bit of the IRSM you now portray as innocent victims managed to murder a nine year old girl in one particularly memorable feud.
Thanks for bringing up this point to highlight your lies and manipulations of the truth.
The girl in question was shot dead when a gunman opened fire on the house and acidentally shot this young girl.
This young girls father openly accepted the INLA's sincere apology in her death as it was not intended.
But you feel free to use it as a political football to try and attempt to slander the IRSM when even the young girls father accepts the INLA's apology.


This is a complete, unadulterated, lie. It is a brazenly stupid lie as well because it isn't even the official IRSP view of its own past. Even the IRSM itself acknowledges which is that some terrible things were done and apolitical gangster elements found a home in the movement. It just claims that all of that is in the past now.
Here is the official IRSM line on this:
"The days of using this movement as a flag of convenience for personal gain are gone. The days of bullying working class youth are gone. The days of policing working class communities are gone. Those things were never on the agenda of the Republican Socialist Movement but unfortunately some scum floated towards the top of this movement in the past"
You'd be better off sticking to the "that's all in the past, trust us, really" approach rather than just trying to lie your past away.

This I dont understand.
Of course I recognised that there were criminal elements in the past, I did not deny this and I also stated that during these isolated incidents the IRSM removed and took action against those individuals who brought the movement into disripute.
But your quote there from the IRSM does not in the least contradict what I said so your little hysterics about it being a "brazen lie" are just that, hysterics from a bourgeois mouthpiece afraid to attack the movement on a political line and as such must drag up tabloid headlines and caricatures but sure what do you expect from a pig but a grunt.

Big words for an Irp. I'm almost impressed.
Yet again showing your own political short comings.
You are afraid to attack the movement on a material marxist perspective and as such must regurgitate bourgeois stereotypes and hysterical headlines in an attempt to slander and undermine the movement.
So when you are willing to debate maturely on the issue dont forget to post it after all we are Marxists here and your not playing to the Bourgeois gallery here.

[Andropov]

As I said before - I value my aging kneecaps, and make no apology for it.
And as I said before your attempts at wit are about as successfulla s your attempt to substantiate your allegations against the IRSM.
Nominally zilch, zero, nada.
So in your own time JRG do provide the names of these "Lunatics" and "nutjobs" of the IRSM that you know and indeed live beside.

Kind of proves my point.
You have a probelm with Revolutionary Justice now?
You do realise what your beloved Trotsky did to members of the Red Army that brought the movement into disrepute?
Yet again highlighting your own petty-bourgeois sentimentality and your wholey reactionary danceing to bourgeois sentiments.

[Palingenisis]

So in your own time JRG do provide the names of these "Lunatics" and "nutjobs" of the IRSM that you know and indeed live beside.
.

Members of his organization have used similiar terms about the Naxalite insurgents who control almost one third of India at the moment and the Shining Path in Peru which came very close to victory during the 1990s. So its actually a compliment coming from them and suggests the IRSM falls on the right side of the class divide. After the poll tax riots in England is organization went on television and said that they would tout on any of those who defended themselves and the crowd for the capitalist state. Know who you are dealing with.

[Andropov]

Members of his organization have used similiar terms about the Naxalite insurgents who control almost one third of India at the moment and the Shining Path in Peru which came very close to victory during the 1990s. So its actually a compliment coming from them and suggests the IRSM falls on the right side of the class divide. After the poll tax riots in England is organization went on television and said that they would tout on any of those who defended themselves and the crowd for the capitalist state. Know who you are dealing with.
Its merely an attempt to slander and smear a movement instead of engageing them with constructive dialogue and a Marxist critique.
The whole sorry escapade of regurgitating bourgeois slogans from tabloids without any critical analysis is inherently very Anti-Marxist.

[MarkP]

Genuinely hilarious stuff from our assembled IRSP knuckle-draggers.

Let's be clear about a few things.

The IRSM is an organisation with no support amongst Irish workers. It is an organisation with a grim history of internecine bloodletting, gangsterism and sectarian murder. Nobody with any sense will touch it with a ten foot pole.

On a theoretical level it has made precisely zero contribution to the Irish socialist movement. The pride it takes in its one solitary theoretical document is almost touching in its childish idiocy. That article, "The Ta Power Document" is a mixture of platitudes and foolishness, its main role being to point out what was to every other organisation the bleeding obvious - a socialist party can't just be a support group for a squad of kneecappers and gunmen.

It only took them 13 years to come up with something a brighter than average child could have told them, although of course they didn't actually implement this shocking theoretical "breakthrough" at that stage and its author was killed in one of the organisation's squalid feuds. It took them a few more years to get round to trying to actually implement the document, and the guy in charge at that stage was... you've guessed it... killed in another squalid feud. What an advertisement for "Republican Socialism" the history of that trite document is.

I'd offer further criticism of their "theory", but they haven't actually produced anything else of substance to criticise in 36 years. So we'll have to stick to their practical record. And that practical record is a catalogue of stupidity, gangsterism and futility.

For most of their history, even by their own account because the Ta Power Document was apparently such a breakthrough for them, the IRSP was a support group for a squad of kneecappers and gunmen. That squad, the grandiosely named Irish National Liberation Army, also used the names People's Liberation Army and Catholic Reaction Force, the last name being the most honest and therefore the least used. For most of its history there wasn't much to say about the IRSP as distinct from the INLA because its only real role was to justify whatever bit of butchery or maiming the gunmen had been up to.

The strategy of the INLA was, in theory, individual terrorism. In practice that amounted to occasional attempts to kill British soldiers or RUC men, interspersed with sectarian murders, maiming alleged petty criminals, extortion, robberies and periodic bouts of killing each other in the feuds the organisation is chiefly remembered for.

Prominent in the organisations history are figures such as Gerard Steenson, Hugh Torney, Declan Duffy, Dessie O'Hare, Dominic McGlinchey and Christopher McWilliams (or Dr Death, Cueball, Whacker, The Border Fox, Mad Dog and Crip). Steenson and Torney were your common or garden murderous nutcases, both particularly prominent in internal feuds and both central leaders of the organisation. O'Hare is mostly of note for kidnapping a dentist and chopping his fingers off. Duffy was head of the Dublin Brigade and a prominent drug dealer. McWilliams was jailed for murdering a bar doorman who had asked him to leave.

The brave actions of the INLA, when they weren't murdering each other, include the murder of a nine year old girl during one of their feuds and bursting into a Protestant church to spray the worshippers with bullets. This was considered even by the INLA to be an embarrassing excess, so even to this day they come up with excuses, normally that it was carried out by one of their members using their weapons but wasn't "authorised".

All of this mayhem and murder advanced the alleged goals of the IRSP and INLA not one inch. Its chief practical function was to act as a funnel for misguided young men directly into a grave or a lengthy prison stretch. The rump IRSP has little or no support and barely functions as a party. Its small membership is ideologically incoherent, with nothing much uniting them in terms of politics or programme. Its role had been to justify whatever atrocity the INLA was up to at a particular time. Now it doesn't even have that role. It's an organisation that has truly earned its place in the dustbin of history.

[Soldier of life]

Genuinely hilarious stuff from our assembled IRSP knuckle-draggers.

Let's be clear about a few things.

The IRSM is an organisation with no support amongst Irish workers. It is an organisation with a grim history of internecine bloodletting, gangsterism and sectarian murder. Nobody with any sense will touch it with a ten foot pole.

On a theoretical level it has made precisely zero contribution to the Irish socialist movement. The pride it takes in its one solitary theoretical document is almost touching in its childish idiocy. That article, "The Ta Power Document" is a mixture of platitudes and foolishness, its main role being to point out what was to every other organisation the bleeding obvious - a socialist party can't just be a support group for a squad of kneecappers and gunmen.

It only took them 13 years to come up with something a brighter than average child could have told them, although of course they didn't actually implement this shocking theoretical "breakthrough" at that stage and its author was killed in one of the organisation's squalid feuds. It took them a few more years to get round to trying to actually implement the document, and the guy in charge at that stage was... you've guessed it... killed in another squalid feud. What an advertisement for "Republican Socialism" the history of that trite document is.

I'd offer further criticism of their "theory", but they haven't actually produced anything else of substance to criticise in 36 years. So we'll have to stick to their practical record. And that practical record is a catalogue of stupidity, gangsterism and futility.

For most of their history, even by their own account because the Ta Power Document was apparently such a breakthrough for them, the IRSP was a support group for a squad of kneecappers and gunmen. That squad, the grandiosely named Irish National Liberation Army, also used the names People's Liberation Army and Catholic Reaction Force, the last name being the most honest and therefore the least used. For most of its history there wasn't much to say about the IRSP as distinct from the INLA because its only real role was to justify whatever bit of butchery or maiming the gunmen had been up to.

The strategy of the INLA was, in theory, individual terrorism. In practice that amounted to occasional attempts to kill British soldiers or RUC men, interspersed with sectarian murders, maiming alleged petty criminals, extortion, robberies and periodic bouts of killing each other in the feuds the organisation is chiefly remembered for.

Prominent in the organisations history are figures such as Gerard Steenson, Hugh Torney, Declan Duffy, Dessie O'Hare, Dominic McGlinchey and Christopher McWilliams (or Dr Death, Cueball, Whacker, The Border Fox, Mad Dog and Crip). Steenson and Torney were your common or garden murderous nutcases, both particularly prominent in internal feuds and both central leaders of the organisation. O'Hare is mostly of note for kidnapping a dentist and chopping his fingers off. Duffy was head of the Dublin Brigade and a prominent drug dealer. McWilliams was jailed for murdering a bar doorman who had asked him to leave.

The brave actions of the INLA, when they weren't murdering each other, include the murder of a nine year old girl during one of their feuds and bursting into a Protestant church to spray the worshippers with bullets. This was considered even by the INLA to be an embarrassing excess, so even to this day they come up with excuses, normally that it was carried out by one of their members using their weapons but wasn't "authorised".

All of this mayhem and murder advanced the alleged goals of the IRSP and INLA not one inch. Its chief practical function was to act as a funnel for misguided young men directly into a grave or a lengthy prison stretch. The rump IRSP has little or no support and barely functions as a party. Its small membership is ideologically incoherent, with nothing much uniting them in terms of politics or programme. Its role had been to justify whatever atrocity the INLA was up to at a particular time. Now it doesn't even have that role. It's an organisation that has truly earned its place in the dustbin of history.

Just a wee point here, would you mind sourcing your claim that the INLA were indeed the CRF?

[Palingenisis]

The IRSM is an organisation with no support amongst Irish workers. It is an organisation with a grim history of internecine bloodletting, gangsterism and sectarian murder. Nobody with any sense will touch it with a ten foot pole.
.

I have my own criticisms of the IRSM but the fact is that people like Seamus Costello, Ronnie Bunting, Patsy O'Hara and Miriam Daly are working class heroes. There is a lot of respect and sympathy for the IRSM among the radical sections of our class and especially for the great fighters and martyrs who were part of it.

[MarkP]

I have my own criticisms of the IRSM but the fact is that people like Seamus Costello, Ronnie Bunting, Patsy O'Hara and Miriam Daly are working class heroes. There is a lot of respect and sympathy for the IRSM among the radical sections of our class and especially for the great fighters and martyrs who were part of it.

Given that you are a delusional fantasist who (A) thinks that the Naxalites control a third of India, (B) thinks that the Shining Path were on the verge of victory and (C) thinks that People's War is a viable strategy in the first world, the value sensible people place on your assessments may not be all that high.

To pretty much any worker in Ireland, the names IRSP or INLA are chiefly associated with violent internecing feuding, sectarian murders and gangsterism. That's a hard earned reputation.

[We Shall Rise Again]

Given that you are a delusional fantasist who (A) thinks that the Naxalites control a third of India, (B) thinks that the Shining Path were on the verge of victory and (C) thinks that People's War is a viable strategy in the first world, the value sensible people place on your assessments may not be all that high.

To pretty much any worker in Ireland, the names IRSP or INLA are chiefly associated with violent internecing feuding, sectarian murders and gangsterism. That's a hard earned reputation.


Ever heard of the hostile press, controlled by capitialism?

do some research and see what the same papers said about connolly and larkin.

in fact the corperate media called for connolly's execution.

[Palingenisis]

Given that you are a delusional fantasist who (A) thinks that the Naxalites control a third of India, (B) thinks that the Shining Path were on the verge of victory and (C) thinks that People's War is a viable strategy in the first world, the value sensible people place on your assessments may not be all that high.
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite-Maoist_insurgency

Id do a bit more research...What am I saying, you know the reality just you are against the Indian revolution...And yes even the capitalists admit that the Shining Path came near to victory. For all the problemns that I have with them the IRSM it cant be denied that their "first generation" was a bright light and their sacrafices our remembered with pride.

Obviously revolution in the first world will be according the circumstances here. However it will not involve the mainstream trade unions and social democracy.

[MarkP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite-Maoist_insurgency

Id do a bit more research...

You are a deluded mentalist.

I really have better things to be doing than arguing with someone who is clearly mentally ill, like for instance scratching my balls and yawning, but here's a hint anyway. There is a difference between claims that the Naxalites have some activity in up to a third of Indian districts and claims that the Naxalites control a third of India. They are still at the hit and run guerilla stage of their insurrection.

[Palingenisis]

You are a deluded mentalist.

.

A Trot calling a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist a deluded mentalist?

Thats a laugh....Havent you some petition to try and get grannies to sign?

[Hoggy_RS]

You are a deluded mentalist.

I really have better things to be doing than arguing with someone who is clearly mentally ill, like for instance scratching my balls and yawning, but here's a hint anyway. There is a difference between claims that the Naxalites have some activity in up to a third of Indian districts and claims that the Naxalites control a third of India. The Naxalites do not control even one whole district in India. They are still at the hit and run guerilla stage of their insurrection.

They've more significance than any trot group. Then again movements who support reactionary loyalist scum are never going to have too much support.

[Palingenisis]

They've more significance than any trot group. Then again movements who support reactionary loyalist scum are never going to have too much support.

I would suggest to comrades in the IRSM that they do their own research into the Naxalite insurgency...They might find out that the CWI is as much to be trusted on it as it is on your own movement.

[We Shall Rise Again]

Stop making yourself look like a fool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_corridor

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/The_Red_Corridor_ver_1.PNG

[QUOTE=GracchusBabeuf;1732368]Let us have a look in brief, at what the people have built through their Development Committees in the villages in Dandakarnya, and what the State wants to destroy. It will give us a glimpse of what the Maoists hold as a vision for the progress and development of our country – development which is indigenously and self reliantly built, one which is people oriented and is constructed in the course of the people’s democratic participation, and one which cares for this land and its resources. Such development which will free us from the stranglehold of imperialist capital and its dictates. A course of action which can only be executed by the truly patriotic.
<ul>The biggest reform undertaken is that of land. They have distributed lakhs of acres of land among every peasant household. And no one is allowed to keep more land than one can till. Thus doing away with unnecessary hiring of labour in agriculture. Even the Patels who used to oppress people and fleece them through unpaid labour have been allowed to retain land they can manage with their family’s labour. No non-tribals are allowed to own land there.
Women are also given property rights over land.
They have developed agriculture from the primitive form of shifting every one or two years, to systematic settled farming. They were taught to sow, weed and harvest the crops. They cultivate both their own private lands as well as co-operative fields for community use. The development of agriculture is being done without using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
They have introduced a wide range of vegetables like carrot, radish, brinjal, bitter gourd, okra, tomato etc., which the tribals of remote areas had never seen or tasted.
They have planted orchards of bananas, citrus fruits, mangoes, guavas etc.
They have built dams, ponds, and water channels for breeding fish and for the purpose of irrigation. All this has been done through collective labour and the produce is distributed free to every household.
They have dug wells for safe drinking water. The industrial projects have destroyed underground water sources, and streams have been polluted to such an extent, that the fish and water life have died as also the vegetation around it. Many fruit trees have stopped flowering around these water resources.
They have set up rice mills in a number of villages. These mills have freed women from the daily pounding of paddy for extracting grain. Many of these mills have been destroyed by Salwa Judum which was launched by the government, which talks so much about development in these areas.
They have built a health care system which reaches every tribal peasant in every village. Each village has a Medicine Unit which has been trained to identify diseases and distribute medicines to the villagers. The health of the tribals%2


thanks for a great post comrade.

truly insperational work by the naxal's. shows the great potential of our class, when it gets a chance to control its own affairs.

south east asia is a really exciting place which i enjoy watching closly at the moment.

while the tactics are different to what will work in ireland, there is certianly something to be learned, and plenty to take motivation from.

[MarkP]

Stop making yourself look like a fool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_corridor

Jesus fucking Christ, there are some live ones here today.

The Naxalites do not control the "Red corridor". The Red corridor is the region where there is most Naxalite activity. They do not, at this point, have the capacity to take and hold those kind of vast swathes of territory. Across the vast bulk of the Red Corridor they mostly hit and run, which is an entirely sensible strategy given the current balance of forces. They do not control a third of India or anything even remotely close to that.

Naxalite activity in a district does not equal Naxalite control of the district, breathless fantasies of some of their admirers abroad aside.

[Saorsa]

You're both a wee bit wrong... MarkP is a delusional idiot, and part of that depressingly large section of the Trotskyist movement whose main purpose in life is to attack genuine revolutionary movements from the 'left'. But at the same time, some of what he's saying is true.

The Naxalites do not control a third of India. They control about a third of India's forested areas, mostly areas inhabited by tribal people with a long history of rebellion and resistance. The Maoists have fused with this section of the masses and have near universal support among them.

A better way of phrasing it would be that the Maoists are developing a situation of dual power in about a third of India. They have built a parallel state and are challenging the authority of the ruling class, organising the masses to resist it and defending their resistance with the guns of the People's Liberation Guerrilla Army. This scares people like MarkP, because fundamentally they're just 'leftists' who never got the guts to stand up to their high school history teacher. Instead, whenever the ruling class attacks revolutionary organisations like the Maoists or the IRSP, they say 'ooh i'm not like them, I'm a Trotskyist we're the nice 'democratic' kind of Marxists, please be my friend Mr Bourgeois Liberal we have so much in common'.

If you want to learn about the CPI (Maoist) and the People's War in India, this is the best place to start. (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264738)

[Jolly Red Giant]

The difference between our gripes with such organisations and their gripes with us is that ours are based on political facts that they cannot deny, while theirs is based on whatever the special branch feed Paul Williams for his next article.
My 'gripes' are based on personal knowledge and experience of these nutcases.



You have a probelm with Revolutionary Justice now?
You do realise what your beloved Trotsky did to members of the Red Army that brought the movement into disrepute?
The INLA - Ireland's Red Army - do you not realise how daft you sound?


Yet again highlighting your own petty-bourgeois sentimentality and your wholey reactionary danceing to bourgeois sentiments.
Because I called the INLA people I knew a bunch of nutcases. A band of individuals who were a law unto themselves, who were riddled with criminals and informants, who engaged in some of the most vicious killings and woundings during the troubles and who have zero understanding to the damage they did to the workers movement on this island. Yea right - I'll go suck up to Kevin Myers.


the Shining Path in Peru which came very close to victory during the 1990s.
The shining path would call workers out on strike over some whim of their leadership and then shoot workers who ignored them. Thankfully the CPI(ML) never got their hands on a few IRA guns (a step too far for their yuppie student members)

[Hoggy_RS]

Does it still hurt that ye lost one of yer former comrades to the INLA?http://www.revleft.com/vb/progressive-unionist-party-t114963/index.html

CWI'ers haven't much scope for attacking the IRSM when they weren't so long ago supporting loyalism. I can tell you from experience in the SP, that there was still many members in the party who actively promoted the idea of getting loyalists(and at a meeting there was talk of disillusioned DUP members) to join the party. On the flip side of things there was lengthy discussions on how protesting against the british army was apparently sectarian.

You can stick your trotskyism right up yer arse.

Do any CWI'er have a reply to this post? Since yer so eager to talk about the past of other movements?

Ye claim the IRSM is full of nutjobs but ye were the ones courting the sectarian murders of the UDA(aka the PUP).

[Jolly Red Giant]

Okay


Does it still hurt that ye lost one of yer former comrades to the INLA
To satisfy your narcissism - no it doesn't bother us. Personally I am a little disappointed to see you throw away your energy on a dead end group of individuals whose political at best could be described as all over the place.


CWI'ers haven't much scope for attacking the IRSM when they weren't so long ago supporting loyalism.
The CWI has never supported loyalism - as I have said in the past - opposition to nationalism does not equate to supporting its sectarian opposite.


I can tell you from experience in the SP, that there was still many members in the party who actively promoted the idea of getting loyalists(and at a meeting there was talk of disillusioned DUP members) to join the party.
First point - I suggest you get some cotton buds and clean out the wax.
Second point - The CWI actually tries to (and has) recruit republicans as well. Some decent people can fall into different sectarian camps, the CWI does not automatically ignore them because of this.


On the flip side of things there was lengthy discussions on how protesting against the british army was apparently sectarian.
Cotton buds time again.


You can stick your trotskyism right up yer arse.
Is the vulgarity really necessary.

There now - happy? :)

[Palingenisis]

Do any CWI'er have a reply to this post? Since yer so eager to talk about the past of other movements?

Ye claim the IRSM is full of nutjobs but ye were the ones courting the sectarian murders of the UDA(aka the PUP).

Something else should be pointed out...The IRSM had a very daring postition on gay liberation from its very beginning, very daring indeed considering the Ireland of the 1970s...While the CWI of the time and way into the 1980s if not the 1990s banned homosexuals from joining their organization in England where homosexuality had been legal for a good while.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Something else should be pointed out...The IRSM had a very daring postition on gay liberation from its very beginning, very daring indeed considering the Ireland of the 1970s...While the CWI of the time and way into the 1980s if not the 1990s banned homosexuals from joining their organization in England where homosexuality had been legal for a good while.
In all honesty - do you guys have nothing better to do than regurgitate this type of nonsense. The Militant never banned homosexuals and the fetishism of Ted Grant was ignored by pretty much everyone else in the Militant.

I don't ever recall the INLA ever shooting any homophobe though?

[Palingenisis]

In all honesty -

Honesty isnt something you do is it?

Are you going to deny that your Party lies about its leadership appearing on television offering to tout after the Poll Tax riots even though millions of people including Devrim here saw and heard it?

Do you ever feel shame for your constant falsification?

[Hoggy_RS]

Okay


To satisfy your narcissism - no it doesn't bother us. Personally I am a little disappointed to see you throw away your energy on a dead end group of individuals whose political at best could be described as all over the place.


The CWI has never supported loyalism - as I have said in the past - opposition to nationalism does not equate to supporting its sectarian opposite.


First point - I suggest you get some cotton buds and clean out the wax.
Second point - The CWI actually tries to (and has) recruit republicans as well. Some decent people can fall into different sectarian camps, the CWI does not automatically ignore them because of this.


Cotton buds time again.


Is the vulgarity really necessary.

There now - happy? :)

Supporting loyalist groups such as the PUP equals supporting loyalism.

I was present at meetings where attracting loyalists was discussed, including former DUP members. I heard all this first hand. In this same meeting me and another comrade(who has since left the SP) were attacked for showing support to an Eirigi protest. We were scorned for supporting a so-called sectarian group and when protesting against the british army was discussed we were told this was sectarian.

The SP/CWI does very little to attract republicans and I was happy to work within the party until the time when I could no longer ignore the clear anti-republican bias. I left the party on good terms and am happy to work with them in Cork as they are a great group of activists on local issues and Cllr Mick Barry is the best politician the city has seen in years. However trotskyite dickheads spouting tabloid bullshit on the internet gets right up my nose.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Supporting loyalist groups such as the PUP equals supporting loyalism.
Maybe you can provide evidence to support this nonsense.


I was present at meetings where attracting loyalists was discussed, including former DUP members.
Answered that one


In this same meeting me and another comrade(who has since left the SP) were attacked for showing support to an Eirigi protest. We were scorned for supporting a so-called sectarian group and when protesting against the british army was discussed we were told this was sectarian.
Maybe you could indicate when the Eirigi protest was and what it was about and the criticisms of those at the meeting to it?


The SP/CWI does very little to attract republicans
The CWI does not consciously orientate towards other political groups for recruits but when there is the possibility of convincing someone of our ideas we make the effort.
http://www.socialistpartyni.net/component/content/article/57-other/86-why-i-left-sinn-fein-and-joined-the-socialist-party-


I was happy to work within the party until the time when I could no longer ignore the clear anti-republican bias.
I make no apology for the CWI's opposition to all of the sectarian camps on this island.


I left the party on good terms and am happy to work with them in Cork as they are a great group of activists on local issues and Cllr Mick Barry is the best politician the city has seen in years. However trotskyite dickheads spouting tabloid bullshit on the internet gets right up my nose.
I am glad you left on good terms, many people who leave do so, but if you then join a sectarian based political group and spout bullshit about the CWI, expect it to return. And I will say this for the last time - I do not read the tabloid press - all my comments about the INLA are based on personal experience over 30 years.

[Palingenisis]

While there are sectarian element on the fringes of Republican Sinn Fein, RSF in its self is not sectarian...And the Republican Network for Unity, the 32 county soveirgnity movement, Eirigi and the Irish Republican Socialist Party are not sectarian at all. Just to make that clear to people outside of Ireland who might be taken in by the British propaganda of JRG.

[Soldier of life]

My 'gripes' are based on personal knowledge and experience of these nutcases.

Oh yes, these mysterious members of the IRSM who you refuse to name because you are concerned for your own well-being, despite the fact this is the internet and that the INLA have decommissioned. If you don't have the balls to say it online, you must really be something in person. Maybe, just maybe, you are talking through your arse.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Oh yes, these mysterious members of the IRSM who you refuse to name because you are concerned for your own well-being, despite the fact this is the internet and that the INLA have decommissioned. If you don't have the balls to say it online, you must really be something in person. Maybe, just maybe, you are talking through your arse.
By naming those that I know personally my location would be very easy to work out and given my political affiliation and vintage my identity would be very easy to work out - the particular individuals I know (those still living locally) wouldn't be too pushed about any 'decommissioning' and would be quite happy to take a baseball bat to my kneecaps for calling them nutjobs (they have done it to others in the past).

I value my kneecaps, bad and all as they are.

[Soldier of life]

The INLA - Ireland's Red Army - do you not realise how daft you sound?

How is that daft, the INLA are a socialist army who fought for a socialist republic in the interests of their class, they directly took on British imperialism and capitalism. If Ireland is to wait for the trots to come up with a Red Army, I think we'll be waiting a while.



Because I called the INLA people I knew a bunch of nutcases. A band of individuals who were a law unto themselves, who were riddled with criminals and informants, who engaged in some of the most vicious killings and woundings during the troubles and who have zero understanding to the damage they did to the workers movement on this island. Yea right - I'll go suck up to Kevin Myers.

How do you know they were INLA members,did they show you a membership card or something? Many have masqueraded as members in the past and this has gone on even in recent times, hence the execution of Brian McGlynn and Jim McConnell for using the INLA's name to intimidate people for their criminal enterprises. Please, if you are concerned that members of the IRSM are 'nutcases' or are involved in criminality by all means report it to the party who will investigate it, however I don't think you'll do that as you plainly are happy to just slabber garbage online that you can't substantiate.

This is typical of trots really, say the IRSP are incoherent ideologically yet refuse to engage politically and instead utilise the capitalist tactic of slander in an attempt to discredit the source. It is not the IRSP who is all over the place ideologically, imagine courting a double sectarian murdering scumbag and his organisation and calling a protest against the British Army 'sectarian'. It reminds me of the anarchists that day, who indeed protested against the army also, who said that they were the only ones holding a non-sectarian protest LOL Just infantile rubbish from opportunist irish trots basically who pander to loyalism and reaction. Very easy to support liberation struggles in the Middle East and elsewhere, but when push comes to shove the trots in Ireland sit at their laptops and pander to the enemy of progressive Republican Socialist politics.

[MarkP]

You're both a wee bit wrong... MarkP is a delusional idiot, and part of that depressingly large section of the Trotskyist movement whose main purpose in life is to attack genuine revolutionary movements from the 'left'. But at the same time, some of what he's saying is true.

I'm a deluded mentalist... but everything I said about the Naxalites is true! A soewhat peculiar form of delusion.

The Naxalites do not control a third of India. They have never controlled a third of India. They do not control the "Red corridor". In fact estimates for the area under their influence vary from a sixth of the Indian jungles and forests to a third of them. Which is to say 3% to 5% of India. It is not a slight on the Naxalites to say this. Nor is it a slight on them to say that their military tactics are hit and run, because even in their strongest regions the balance of forces dictates that. They would have to be completely stupid to get involved in pitched battles with the Indian state forces at this point and whatever else they are, they are not completely stupid.

I didn't actually say one critical word about the Naxalites, if you read what I said. I was firmly critical of delusional fruitcakes like Palingenisis and Gracchus who were claiming that the Naxalbari control a third of India (Palingenisis) or the Red corrider (Gracchus). These people are mad, stupid or dishonest (or some mixture of the three). I do of course have significant disagreements with the approach of the Naxalbari, but they are a serious force who deserve to be criticised seriously. The same cannot be said for a lone oddball on the internet making completely wild claims about them controlling a third of India.


Instead, whenever the ruling class attacks revolutionary organisations like the Maoists or the IRSP, they say 'ooh i'm not like them, I'm a Trotskyist we're the nice 'democratic' kind of Marxists, please be my friend Mr Bourgeois Liberal we have so much in common'.

Let me suggest to you Alastair that you actually know fuck all about the IRSP, a tiny and incoherent sect, with a bloody, futile and murderously sectarian history. If you did know anything about it, you wouldn't come out with drivel like the above, which actually does the Naxalbari a grave disservice. The INLA was an Irish equivalent of the RAF not of the Naxalbari.

As for your moronic taunting above, I look forward to you taking to the mountains of the South Island to build a base area amongst the isolated peasantry. After all, you can't possibly be a real revolutionary without engaging in pointless and counterproductive gun battles. Any thinking about the kind of strategies that might actually be appropriate for the material conditions of the country you are working in is a sign of liberalism.

[MarkP]

How is that daft, the INLA are a socialist army who fought for a socialist republic in the interests of their class,

The INLA were a tiny, daft, bunch of fucking idiots operating a strategy of individual terrorism. They engaged in the mutilation of teenagers, sectarian murders and gangsterism and were generally as much danger to themselves as anyone else. There's nothing else to say about them.

[MarkP]

Do any CWI'er have a reply to this post? Since yer so eager to talk about the past of other movements?

Ye claim the IRSM is full of nutjobs but ye were the ones courting the sectarian murders of the UDA(aka the PUP).

Sure, I'll respond.

The Socialist Party has always been willing to engage with and debate with people from sectarian groups who seem to be or claim to be moving to the left. Engaging with them is not the same thing as agreeing with them, still less endorsing them. If you are going to rule out winning over people who ever supported or voted for or joined a Loyalist or a Unionist movement, you are ruling out winning over Northern Protestants. We also sometimes recruit people from Republican organisations - my own branch includes two ex-Provos.

Your apparent fear of contamination should you engage with Protestant workers is all too obvious and it is I suppose entirely appropriate given where you ended up politically. By the way, you have the PUP's origins wrong, but it seems that detail isn't your strong point.

And while I'm here, for the record Militant never had a ban on having gay members.

Are there any other lies you'd like me to counter while I'm here? I've generally been ignoring slanders from obviously mad people (like breathless fantasist Palingenisis), but if they are causing any confusion feel free to let me know.

[Jolly Red Giant]

As for your moronic taunting above, I look forward to you taking to the mountains of the South Island to build a base area amongst the isolated peasantry. After all, you can't possibly be a real revolutionary without engaging in pointless and counterproductive gun battles. Any thinking about the kind of strategies that might actually be appropriate for the material conditions of the country you are working in is a sign of liberalism.
Actually sometime during the summer of 1968 the CPI(ML) decided that they would build a peasant army. The half a dozen of them camped in a field somewhere in Kilkenny. The following morning they went up to a farmers house and knocked on the door. When the farmer answered they handed him a bucket and asked 'comrade peasant, can we have some water'. The farmer went back into his house, re-emerged with a shotgun and 30 minutes later they had packed their tents and hit the road. By September they were back intheir comfy dorms in Trinity.

[Jolly Red Giant]

How do you know they were INLA members,did they show you a membership card or something? Many have masqueraded as members in the past and this has gone on even in recent times, hence the execution of Brian McGlynn and Jim McConnell for using the INLA's name to intimidate people for their criminal enterprises.
Give us a break - In relation to one I was unfortunate enough to withness an attempt by an INLA faction to assassinate him during one of the feuds.


Please, if you are concerned that members of the IRSM are 'nutcases' or are involved in criminality by all means report it to the party who will investigate it,
How stupid do you think I am?


This is typical of trots really, say the IRSP are incoherent ideologically yet refuse to engage politically
actually it would be more accurate to say there is an absence of political ideology rather than being ideologically incoherent. Get one of the theoreticians to write something and I will personally promise to critique it.

[Hoggy_RS]

Maybe you can provide evidence to support this nonsense.


Answered that one


Maybe you could indicate when the Eirigi protest was and what it was about and the criticisms of those at the meeting to it?


The CWI does not consciously orientate towards other political groups for recruits but when there is the possibility of convincing someone of our ideas we make the effort.
http://www.socialistpartyni.net/component/content/article/57-other/86-why-i-left-sinn-fein-and-joined-the-socialist-party-


I make no apology for the CWI's opposition to all of the sectarian camps on this island.


I am glad you left on good terms, many people who leave do so, but if you then join a sectarian based political group and spout bullshit about the CWI, expect it to return. And I will say this for the last time - I do not read the tabloid press - all my comments about the INLA are based on personal experience over 30 years.
I already provided a link to a thread where the topic is discussed.

Eirigi were protesting against british warship docking in dublin as well as their release of the 'heroes' video which highlighting british oppression in its imperialist conquests.

The CWI more or less thinks everyone but themselves(and the PUP) are sectarian. It's a ridiculous position.

It's a good thing I didn't join a sectarian group so.

Sure, I'll respond.

The Socialist Party has always been willing to engage with and debate with people from sectarian groups who seem to be or claim to be moving to the left. Engaging with them is not the same thing as agreeing with them, still less endorsing them. If you are going to rule out winning over people who ever supported or voted for or joined a Loyalist or a Unionist movement, you are ruling out winning over Northern Protestants. We also sometimes recruit people from Republican organisations - my own branch includes two ex-Provos.

Your apparent fear of contamination should you engage with Protestant workers is all too obvious and it is I suppose entirely appropriate given where you ended up politically. By the way, you have the PUP's origins wrong, but it seems that detail isn't your strong point.

And while I'm here, for the record Militant never had a ban on having gay members.

Are there any other lies you'd like me to counter while I'm here? I've generally been ignoring slanders from obviously mad people (like breathless fantasist Palingenisis), but if they are causing any confusion feel free to let me know.

The fact that you equate all protestant workers with being loyalists shows how ridiculous your position is. My movement has had many protestant members and supporters over the years so don't spout lies about sectarianism in the IRSM because the majority here know its lies.

[IrishWorker]

Genuinely hilarious stuff from our assembled IRSP knuckle-draggers.

Let's be clear about a few things.

The IRSM is an organisation with no support amongst Irish workers. It is an organisation with a grim history of internecine bloodletting, gangsterism and sectarian murder. Nobody with any sense will touch it with a ten foot pole.

On a theoretical level it has made precisely zero contribution to the Irish socialist movement. The pride it takes in its one solitary theoretical document is almost touching in its childish idiocy. That article, "The Ta Power Document" is a mixture of platitudes and foolishness, its main role being to point out what was to every other organisation the bleeding obvious - a socialist party can't just be a support group for a squad of kneecappers and gunmen.

It only took them 13 years to come up with something a brighter than average child could have told them, although of course they didn't actually implement this shocking theoretical "breakthrough" at that stage and its author was killed in one of the organisation's squalid feuds. It took them a few more years to get round to trying to actually implement the document, and the guy in charge at that stage was... you've guessed it... killed in another squalid feud. What an advertisement for "Republican Socialism" the history of that trite document is.

I'd offer further criticism of their "theory", but they haven't actually produced anything else of substance to criticise in 36 years. So we'll have to stick to their practical record. And that practical record is a catalogue of stupidity, gangsterism and futility.

For most of their history, even by their own account because the Ta Power Document was apparently such a breakthrough for them, the IRSP was a support group for a squad of kneecappers and gunmen. That squad, the grandiosely named Irish National Liberation Army, also used the names People's Liberation Army and Catholic Reaction Force, the last name being the most honest and therefore the least used. For most of its history there wasn't much to say about the IRSP as distinct from the INLA because its only real role was to justify whatever bit of butchery or maiming the gunmen had been up to.

The strategy of the INLA was, in theory, individual terrorism. In practice that amounted to occasional attempts to kill British soldiers or RUC men, interspersed with sectarian murders, maiming alleged petty criminals, extortion, robberies and periodic bouts of killing each other in the feuds the organisation is chiefly remembered for.

Prominent in the organisations history are figures such as Gerard Steenson, Hugh Torney, Declan Duffy, Dessie O'Hare, Dominic McGlinchey and Christopher McWilliams (or Dr Death, Cueball, Whacker, The Border Fox, Mad Dog and Crip). Steenson and Torney were your common or garden murderous nutcases, both particularly prominent in internal feuds and both central leaders of the organisation. O'Hare is mostly of note for kidnapping a dentist and chopping his fingers off. Duffy was head of the Dublin Brigade and a prominent drug dealer. McWilliams was jailed for murdering a bar doorman who had asked him to leave.

The brave actions of the INLA, when they weren't murdering each other, include the murder of a nine year old girl during one of their feuds and bursting into a Protestant church to spray the worshippers with bullets. This was considered even by the INLA to be an embarrassing excess, so even to this day they come up with excuses, normally that it was carried out by one of their members using their weapons but wasn't "authorised".

All of this mayhem and murder advanced the alleged goals of the IRSP and INLA not one inch. Its chief practical function was to act as a funnel for misguided young men directly into a grave or a lengthy prison stretch. The rump IRSP has little or no support and barely functions as a party. Its small membership is ideologically incoherent, with nothing much uniting them in terms of politics or programme. Its role had been to justify whatever atrocity the INLA was up to at a particular time. Now it doesn't even have that role. It's an organisation that has truly earned its place in the dustbin of history.

A picture is worth a thousand words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHltQhOjHhs

[Palingenisis]

Actually sometime during the summer of 1968 the CPI(ML) decided that they would build a peasant army. The half a dozen of them camped in a field somewhere in Kilkenny. The following morning they went up to a farmers house and knocked on the door. When the farmer answered they handed him a bucket and asked 'comrade peasant, can we have some water'. The farmer went back into his house, re-emerged with a shotgun and 30 minutes later they had packed their tents and hit the road. By September they were back intheir comfy dorms in Trinity.

The Communist Party of Ireland Marxist-Leninist had as much as existence of your knee capping Irp neighbours in the summer of 1968...It was formed in july of 1970.

[Jolly Red Giant]

A picture is worth a thousand words

Wow - that was inspiring - particularly all those marches in military formation waving the tricolour. The revolution can only be around the corner with such brave volunteers. Where can I sign up?

[Soldier of life]

I already provided a link to a thread where the topic is discussed.

Eirigi were protesting against british warship docking in dublin as well as their release of the 'heroes' video which highlighting british oppression in its imperialist conquests.

The CWI more or less thinks everyone but themselves(and the PUP) are sectarian. It's a ridiculous position.

It's a good thing I didn't join a sectarian group so.


The fact that you equate all protestant workers with being loyalists shows how ridiculous your position is. My movement has had many protestant members and supporters over the years so don't spout lies about sectarianism in the IRSM because the majority here know its lies.

Indeed, even a chief of staff of the INLA was a protestant for a couple years. The reality is the IRSP have the correct approach towards loyalism, a principled approach, while the trots will bend over backwards to appease reaction and even a double sectarian murderer.

Says alot again, that we attack them for things they did and support politically, while all we are being met with is anecdotal crap with no evidence whatsoever.

[Jolly Red Giant]

It was formed in july of 1970.The CPI(ML) was formed from a group called 'Internationalists for Ireland' which was established by Bains in Trinity College in 1965 based around opposition to the revisionism of Khrushchev. He used it to organise a conference entitled "Necessity for Change" in London in 1967 using his contacts to attract people from many parts of the world and subsequently to persuade people from Britain, Canada and India to establish anti-revisionist parties. The Irish delegation actually led a walkout at the conference when Bains couldn't convince the majority of the attendees to follow his line. The Indian group, which was actually based in Canada until it got a presence in the Punjab in the mid-1970's, initally supported the Naxalites, before subsequently condeming them as Third World Theorists when Bains groups went over lock, stock and barrel to supporting Hoxha.

I know a substantial amount about the CPI(ML) as a neighbour of mine was one of the founding members and tried to recruit me to the CPI(ML) shortly before he abandoned the party and concentrated on making money.

Technically you are right - the CPI(ML) was formed in 1970 when it actually registered as a political party to fight elections in Ireland, but the organisation itself existed for several years before that happened.

You really are skating on thin ice of you think you are going to catch me out on the history of the various far-left splits in Ireland (and the CPI(ML) had a couple of those as well).


Indeed, even a chief of staff of the INLA was a protestant for a couple years.
Who ever claimed that all the nutjobs had to be Catholic - for feck sake there are plenty of them in the loyalist paramilitaries.


The reality is the IRSP have the correct approach towards loyalism,
yes indeed - shoot them all.


with no evidence whatsoever.
The evidence is consistantly met with a chorus of 'wasn't us - it was one of the spliters'.

[Palingenisis]

You really are skating on thin ice of you think you are going to catch me out on the history of the various far-left splits in Ireland (and the CPI(ML) had a couple of those as well).

What splits did the CPI (ML) have?

[Jolly Red Giant]

What splits did the CPI (ML) have?
You have to remember that throughout it's entire existance the CPI(ML) were so small they could have held their congress in a phone box (if they ever actually held a congress which was an extremely rare occurance). So a split in the CPI(ML) is not hugely significant in the great scheme of things.

The first split that I am aware of occurred after the 1974 British General Election. It resulted from two issues.

The CPI(ML) ran three candidates in the North in the election. The ran on an overtly republican ticket openly supporting the IRA. At the time SF did not run in elections and the CPI(ML) hoped to tap into support in the Catholic community for the IRA. The CPI(ML) had little impact and, despite Vipond marching back into Trinity with a handful of people (after spending six months of his tenure as Trinity SU president running his election campaign in South Down) at the head of a merry band of a half a dozen helpers carrying a large read banner decalring his 152 votes indiciated that the Irish working class were on the verge of revolution, my understanding is that the election forced a reassessment of CPI(ML) participation in elections.

The other factor that appears to have caused difficulties at this time was the CPI(ML)'s 'support' for the Ulster Workers Council strike in 1974. The CPI(ML) described the strike as “severe blow to the British monopoly capitalist, as well as to the comprador bourgeoisie north and south”. The CPI(ML) claimed that it was a sign that “the workers of Ulster are going to participate in proletarian socialist revolution, are going to unite with their fellow Irish workers to settle matters with the British imperialists …”. As a result a couple of people split.

Sometime in the very late 1980's one of the two CPI(ML) members in Cork split over everything that was going on around the impending collapse of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and particularly the changes being introduced by Alia in Albania, although I suspect the real reason is that his daddy finally convinced him to give up his fetish about the CPI(ML) and go back to his upper middle-class roots.

[vyborg]

I saw the video. It is good that the IRSP stands in Connoly tradition. Still somewhere it emerges nationalism not socialism. For instance why a march with Irish flags? Is Ireland a socialist country? And what about the slogan "to eliminate the control of foreig capitalist"? what about irish capitalist? are they good because irish?

This is not Connolly...

[IrishWorker]

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8931/derrymayday20104.jpg


http://rsmforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=3787

[Jolly Red Giant]

You do realise that Eamonn McCann is standing behind the banner. Were ye so short of members that ye had to get a member of the SWP stand in for the photo? Or maybe he did manage to infiltrate the IRSP all those years ago!

[IrishWorker]

You do realise that Eamonn McCann is standing behind the banner. Were ye so short of members that ye had to get a member of the SWP stand in for the photo? Or maybe he did manage to infiltrate the IRSP all those years ago!

The IRSP backing McCann is a positive move that takes the Irish Revolutionary Left one small step closer to the Broad Front.
TBH I couldn't give a fuck about your petty snide remarks it shows everyone on this board that you are more interested in immature sniping from the sidelines than acknowledging real progressive change.

[Hoggy_RS]

You do realise that Eamonn McCann is standing behind the banner. Were ye so short of members that ye had to get a member of the SWP stand in for the photo? Or maybe he did manage to infiltrate the IRSP all those years ago!

You do realise the name of this thread? IRSP back McCann? So here is a picture of McCann with a groups of irps on may day.

[Jolly Red Giant]

You do realise the name of this thread? IRSP back McCann? So here is a picture of McCann with a groups of irps on may day. I know - but given the guff spouted about McCann being caught trying to infiltrate the IRSP in the past, you did leave yourself open for the comment.

Specifically on topic - I am sure that McCann welcomes support from whereever he can get it. It is unfortunate that in this election the SWP have further watered down its political programme. Is support by the IRSP for McCann progressive? I would suggest that the answer is 'not particularly'. The IRSP have nothing to offer working class people, the IRSP is all over the shop in terms of political programme (what little exists), the IRSP in the future will inevitably got back to their bomb and bullet campaign and engage in the same sectarian activity as they did for 30 years. I am sure if the IRSP send a few people to canvass for McCann he would welcome the extra footsoldiers - his choice.

[IrishWorker]

I know - but given the guff spouted about McCann being caught trying to infiltrate the IRSP in the past, you did leave yourself open for the comment.

Specifically on topic - I am sure that McCann welcomes support from whereever he can get it. It is unfortunate that in this election the SWP have further watered down its political programme. Is support by the IRSP for McCann progressive? I would suggest that the answer is 'not particularly'. The IRSP have nothing to offer working class people, the IRSP is all over the shop in terms of political programme (what little exists), the IRSP in the future will inevitably got back to their bomb and bullet campaign and engage in the same sectarian activity as they did for 30 years. I am sure if the IRSP send a few people to canvass for McCann he would welcome the extra footsoldiers - his choice.

More petty jags.

The IRSPs support for McCann in Derry amounts to more than a few foot soldiers knocking doors the last time a member of the IRSM stood in the city was 2007 and she polled 1800 votes, votes that McCann will be more than glad to have.
I dont know if you read the news but the INLA have decommissioned its arsenal so I doubt a return to war is on the cards anytime soon.

[The Grey Blur]

The IRSP have nothing to offer working class people, the IRSP is all over the shop in terms of political programme (what little exists), the IRSP in the future will inevitably got back to their bomb and bullet campaign and engage in the same sectarian activity as they did for 30 years. I am sure if the IRSP send a few people to canvass for McCann he would welcome the extra footsoldiers - his choice.
This is where we diverge. The ideas of left republicanism attract a layer of support from young people in working-class catholic areas. I see it already with a lot of my friends, who would be close to Eirigi or IRSP-esque politics though not members. I don't think making a fetish out of of refusing to speak to these people is the best attitude. And doesn't that contradict the SP's discussions with members of the PUP in the past? Which I would support despite the republican hysterics on this board. Regularly the working-classes in the north express their class consciousness through the left-sectarians and I think it's a worthwhile cause to engage with these people and win them to a non-tribal socialist position.

[Saorsa]

Are the PUP really 'left'-sectarians?

[The Grey Blur]

Yes...there is a history of pro-Union socialist of a confused variety who have emerged from protestant working class areas in the north, in a way the PUP were nothing new. For all the howling of the mad-dogs on this board the accusation of the PUP being linked to sectarian murderers is an accusation the IRSP could hardly refute. Again we return to the point of whether or not to engage with emerging class consciousness even when it has refused to shed its tribalist trappings or to remain loftily outside any such debate.

EDIT: I'll just add that on the IRSM boards after David Ervine (leader of the PUP) died, there was debate over whether to send flowers to his funeral along with other such eulogies.

[Palingenisis]

Are the PUP really 'left'-sectarians?

He also seems to consider the IRSP left-sectarians.

[BOZG]

Are the PUP really 'left'-sectarians?

At a certain point, the PUP were making a lot of left noises, putting forward somewhat of a class programme. It was a confused on contradictory programme. But the working class often puts foward confused and backwards positions on one hand and making positive step forwards on the other.


Again we return to the point of whether or not to engage with emerging class consciousness even when it has refused to shed its tribalist trappings or to remain loftily outside any such debate.

Exactly. Unfortunately the position of the Repubican movement, at its very best, is a demand that loyalists must completely break with loyalism before they will engage with emerging class consciousness.

[Soldier of life]

I know - but given the guff spouted about McCann being caught trying to infiltrate the IRSP in the past, you did leave yourself open for the comment.

He wasn't caught trying to infiltrate anything, the IRSP were suspicious of him and his supporters ideologically, and the IRSP set parameters that they would have to abide by if they were to recieve membership [eg. IRSP leadership would have to give certain articles the OK], and no agreement could be reached so he did not join. I don't see how anyone left the IRSP open for that comment, it's just your seemingly inherent childish mindset that led you to make a childish and pointless remark.


Specifically on topic - I am sure that McCann welcomes support from whereever he can get it. It is unfortunate that in this election the SWP have further watered down its political programme. Is support by the IRSP for McCann progressive? I would suggest that the answer is 'not particularly'. The IRSP have nothing to offer working class people, the IRSP is all over the shop in terms of political programme (what little exists), the IRSP in the future will inevitably got back to their bomb and bullet campaign and engage in the same sectarian activity as they did for 30 years. I am sure if the IRSP send a few people to canvass for McCann he would welcome the extra footsoldiers - his choice.

Just absolute waffle, how did you come to the conclusion that the INLA would go back to war? That is just based on assumption, and a poor one at that, and effectively a moot point. If you would bother to read actual IRSP or INLA statements rather than tabloids you would be well aware of the current analysis of the IRSM. That analysis is that the INLA, although engaging in legitmate actions in a legitimate political struggle, was ultimately pursuing the wrong path strategically. As Connolly said, without the strength of the industrial union behind it, democracy can only enter the state as the victim enters the gullet of the serpent...in other words the INLA probably concentrated too much on trying to outgun the provisionals to the neglect of a strategy that would draw in workers to take part in the struggle, rather than rendering them as spectators. The INLA, due to media propaganda that you seem to love to repeat, is probably a hinderence at this point to the politics of the movement. The analysis of the IRSP is that we must build a mass workers movement, and armed action should only be carried out to supplement that goal.

Funny that you say the IRSP has nothing to offer the working clas in the North, the SP are hardly setting the world alight up there now are they:rolleyes: No surprise there, the SP's main rep there Peter Hadden is a little twat, who speaks about the IRSP in much the same vein as yourself. In a meeting he once decribed a senior member of the IRSP as a drug dealer, of course the IRSP member in question gave him a call and surprise surprise owl Peter couldn't exactly back up the claims. In fact, he cited his source as being Sinn Fein:lol: What a joke of an organisation.

[Soldier of life]

At a certain point, the PUP were making a lot of left noises, putting forward somewhat of a class programme. It was a confused on contradictory programme. But the working class often puts foward confused and backwards positions on one hand and making positive step forwards on the other.



Exactly. Unfortunately the position of the Repubican movement, at its very best, is a demand that loyalists must completely break with loyalism before they will engage with emerging class consciousness.

Not fully correct, my personal belief is that a strong position should be taken with regard to loyalism, I wish to see it smashed simple as that. But as MLs an ML approach should be taken, in much the same way one would approach someone in the South who typically has a low level of political or class consciousness, ie. take them at the level they are at and work from there, rather than the level we would like them to be at.

The IRSP engages in many cross community initiatives, as does its youth wing the RSYM. But I don't believe in hiding our politics and enter the realms of gas and water socialism, or ring road socialism as costello called it. We stand for national liberation and that is an important aspect of our politics, it shouldn't be hidden to appease loyalist tendencies and build alliances on a false pretence.

[Palingenisis]

Funny that you say the IRSP has nothing to offer the working clas in the North, the SP are hardly setting the world alight up there now are they:rolleyes: No surprise there, the SP's main rep there Peter Hadden is a little twat, who speaks about the IRSP in much the same vein as yourself. In a meeting he once decribed a senior member of the IRSP as a drug dealer, of course the IRSP member in question gave him a call and surprise surprise owl Peter couldn't exactly back up the claims. In fact, he cited his source as being Sinn Fein:lol: What a joke of an organisation.

I dont think such carry on is funny. I actually think its pretty sinister...As a Maoist Im not completely in line with the IRSM but I recognize the reality that your movement has made great sacrafices for the cause of the national liberation and social justice and given great heroes and heroines to working class both in Ireland and internationally. If he did find himself with a sore kneecap because of such behaviour I would be far from sad.

[Soldier of life]

I dont think such carry on is funny. I actually think its pretty sinister...As a Maoist Im not completely in line with the IRSM but I recognize the reality that your movement has made great sacrafices for the cause of the national liberation and social justice and given great heroes and heroines to working class both in Ireland and internationally. If he did find himself with a sore kneecap because of such behaviour I would be far from sad.


Funnily enough he didn't, I believe he apologised and this was accepted. And this was a couple years ago so well before the INLA decommissioned, doesn't exactly back up jolly red giant's characterisation of the IRSM now does it?

[Palingenisis]

Funnily enough he didn't, I believe he apologised and this was accepted. And this was a couple years ago so well before the INLA decommissioned, doesn't exactly back up jolly red giant's characterisation of the IRSM now does it?

Actually I would take such attacks against as a compliment. It shows to me that you are considered serious about revolution...Otherwise why would the capitalist press and the lap dogs of Imperialism slander you so?

Solidarity!

[Woyzeck]

socialist republicans should seek election to bodies which recognise the sovereignty of the Irish People.

Like what?

[Woyzeck]

They've more significance than any trot group. Then again movements who support reactionary loyalist scum are never going to have too much support.

And Fianna Fáil are more 'significant' than the IRSP. So what?

[Woyzeck]

How is that daft, the INLA are a socialist army who fought for a socialist republic in the interests of their class, they directly took on British imperialism and capitalism. If Ireland is to wait for the trots to come up with a Red Army, I think we'll be waiting a while.

How do you know they were INLA members,did they show you a membership card or something? Many have masqueraded as members in the past and this has gone on even in recent times, hence the execution of Brian McGlynn and Jim McConnell for using the INLA's name to intimidate people for their criminal enterprises. Please, if you are concerned that members of the IRSM are 'nutcases' or are involved in criminality by all means report it to the party who will investigate it, however I don't think you'll do that as you plainly are happy to just slabber garbage online that you can't substantiate.

This is typical of trots really, say the IRSP are incoherent ideologically yet refuse to engage politically and instead utilise the capitalist tactic of slander in an attempt to discredit the source. It is not the IRSP who is all over the place ideologically, imagine courting a double sectarian murdering scumbag and his organisation and calling a protest against the British Army 'sectarian'. It reminds me of the anarchists that day, who indeed protested against the army also, who said that they were the only ones holding a non-sectarian protest LOL Just infantile rubbish from opportunist irish trots basically who pander to loyalism and reaction. Very easy to support liberation struggles in the Middle East and elsewhere, but when push comes to shove the trots in Ireland sit at their laptops and pander to the enemy of progressive Republican Socialist politics.

Does CWI even support "liberation struggles in the Middle East"? And please stop mechanically using the term "Trot" when you mean reformist-left. We're not all opposed to national liberation as I'm sure you're well aware.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Does CWI even support "liberation struggles in the Middle East"? And please stop mechanically using the term "Trot" when you mean reformist-left. We're not all opposed to national liberation as I'm sure you're well aware.
The CWI supports the rights of the people of the Middle East to self-determination just as it supports the rights of the people on the island of Ireland to self-determination. The CWI does not support paramilitary organisations who engage in the tactics of individual terror and does not support reactionary religious fundementalist organisations, who offer no future (or prospect of victory) to the working class and poor of Northern Ireland or the Middle East.

Oh - and before I forget - the INLA are not a socialist army (and they wouldn't know a socialist republic if it jumped up and bit them on the arse) - they are a bunch of sectarian headbangers who have committed some of the worst atrocities in the North and when they weren't doing that they spent most of the rest of the time shooting one another.

[Hoggy_RS]

Oh - and before I forget - the INLA are not a socialist army (and they wouldn't know a socialist republic if it jumped up and bit them on the arse) - they are a bunch of sectarian headbangers who have committed some of the worst atrocities in the North and when they weren't doing that they spent most of the rest of the time shooting one another.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3839/coolstorybroc.jpg (http://img245.imageshack.us/i/coolstorybroc.jpg/)

[No pasarán]

Oh - and before I forget - the INLA are not a socialist army (and they wouldn't know a socialist republic if it jumped up and bit them on the arse) - they are a bunch of sectarian headbangers who have committed some of the worst atrocities in the North and when they weren't doing that they spent most of the rest of the time shooting one another.

What proof of this do you have? You keep using this argument and the republican socialists keep refuting it??. Ronnie Bunting and Noel Lyttle are the best known PROTESTANT members of the INLA. Following in the proud tradition of Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmets, Sam Maguire, Roger Casement, Jack White, John Graham, George Gilmore...

They have also acknowledged the stupidy of giving the weapons to those who then carried out the CRF attack which was at the time and still is condemmed utterly. The CRF are not part of INLA and the weapons were obtained on the grounds they were to be used to attack Loyalist paramillitry.

I am not the only IRSM sympathisers on here of a mixed background, either. So how exactly is the IRSM sectarian? Be against it, fine- but don't make unsubstatiated claims. I find many of your posts on the subject of ireland very childish and alarmist, you seem more keen on point scoring against Irps than making valid points.

[Jolly Red Giant]

What proof of this do you have? You keep using this argument and the republican socialists keep refuting it??. Ronnie Bunting and Noel Lyttle are the best known PROTESTANT members of the INLA.
So because a couple of protestant headbangers join the INLA that automatically means that the INLA are not sectarian? - right.


Following in the proud tradition of Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmets, Sam Maguire, Roger Casement, Jack White...
With all due respect there is not a single member of the INLA that has anything in common politically (or militarily) with any of the above - and I would seperate Sam Maguire from the others.


They have also acknowledged the stupidy of giving the weapons to those who then carried out the CRF attack which was at the time and still is condemmed utterly. The CRF are not part of INLA and the weapons were obtained on the grounds they were to be used to attack Loyalist paramillitry.
yea yea yea - and all the internal feuds were provoked by infiltrators and provocateurs - heard it before.


I am not the only IRSM sympathisers on here of a mixed background, either. So how exactly is the IRSM sectarian? Be against it, fine- but don't make unsubstatiated claims.
The relgious background of members does not dictate whether an organisation is sectarian or not - its character and political outlook does


I find many of your posts on the subject of ireland very childish and alarmist, you seem more keen on point scoring against Irps than making valid points.
Alarmist - good one - but then again I have never shot anyone because of their religion, nor have I shot anyone in an internal feud. The INLA did untold damage to the cause of socialism over the past 30 years - the fact that those who support the IRSM cannot recognise that reality demonstrates the political stupidity of the organisation.

[Woyzeck]

The CWI supports the rights of the people of the Middle East to self-determination just as it supports the rights of the people on the island of Ireland to self-determination. The CWI does not support paramilitary organisations who engage in the tactics of individual terror and does not support reactionary religious fundementalist organisations, who offer no future (or prospect of victory) to the working class and poor of Northern Ireland or the Middle East.

Oh - and before I forget - the INLA are not a socialist army (and they wouldn't know a socialist republic if it jumped up and bit them on the arse) - they are a bunch of sectarian headbangers who have committed some of the worst atrocities in the North and when they weren't doing that they spent most of the rest of the time shooting one another.

I'm glad to hear it.

[No pasarán]

So because a couple of protestant headbangers join the INLA that automatically means that the INLA are not sectarian? - right.


With all due respect there is not a single member of the INLA that has anything in common politically (or militarily) with any of the above - and I would seperate Sam Maguire from the others.


yea yea yea - and all the internal feuds were provoked by infiltrators and provocateurs - heard it before.


The relgious background of members does not dictate whether an organisation is sectarian or not - its character and political outlook does


Alarmist - good one - but then again I have never shot anyone because of their religion, nor have I shot anyone in an internal feud. The INLA did untold damage to the cause of socialism over the past 30 years - the fact that those who support the IRSM cannot recognise that reality demonstrates the political stupidity of the organisation.

Ok thankyou, thats probably one of the most mature responses you've made.

I'm not asking you to support the INLA, I don't support a lot of there actions (the infighting for instance and those who formed the IPLO), but I do support some of there efforts. Same with the Provos, though I agree with even less of what they did. All of the armed republican groups could of been more effective and were all flawed. Some of there actions were pointless and even set the struggle back further. And the infighting with the IPLO set the INLA back even further. I accept that. But I still belive in freeing the people, and the British goverment will not let go of there intrests in Ireland without a fight. I would prefer to see that fight conducted via education, unity and communities working together. I hope thats what will now happen, rather than the use of bombs and bullets.

But you counteract yourself in there... "The relgious background of members does not dictate whether an organisation is sectarian or not - its character and political outlook does" but then use " I have never shot anyone because of their religion" as part of your argument?

As for seperating IRSM from the examples of Protestants who fought for Ireland freedom... Jack White and George Gilmore (sorry, I added him to my previous list before I'd seen your response to that post) were both members of the Republican Congress and helped to try to steer Irish Republicanisim back to the left. Sam Maquire was a member of the Irish Republican brotherhood.

Seamus Costello was a commited socialist and the IRSP belive themselves to be direct descendents of the Irish Socialist Republican Party. It was formed by republicans, socialists, and trade unionists. Not a bunch of bloody thirsty pyscho's.

I'm sure I'm a headbanger in your eyes though, cos I'm half protestant/ half catholic (FUCK THE CHURCH), I'm a republican and I beat fascists mercilessly as well to give you another point to use against me.

[Soldier of life]

So because a couple of protestant headbangers join the INLA that automatically means that the INLA are not sectarian? - right.

Please provide evidence that those two men were headbangers? You're points are incredibly weak and don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny as all they are based on is assumptions, what you've read in the papers and your anecdotes about 'irps' you know who live under your bed and go bump in the night. Ronnie Bunting was certainly not a headbanger by the way, he came from a hardline loyalist and pro-imperialist and pro-sectarian family background, yet he was nothing of the sort, from such tough origins he went an joined the Republican Socialist army the INLA, an army that fought against imperialism, loyalism and capitalism. Some headbanger, if he was from another country you'd probably be wearing a t-shirt with his face on the front.:lol:


With all due respect there is not a single member of the INLA that has anything in common politically (or militarily) with any of the above - and I would seperate Sam Maguire from the others.

With all due respect how can you quantify that, have you met and had political discussions with every member of the INLA? This is a ridiculous and infantile argument, it has no basis whatsoever, embarressing.




The relgious background of members does not dictate whether an organisation is sectarian or not - its character and political outlook does Absolutely, and the IRSP and INLA are socialist organisations who oppose sectarianism and promote working class unity. The only leftist group I see as being sectarian seems to be the SP, they are the ones who like to court sectarian right-wing paramilitaries and discuss approaching ex-DUP members for membership. Again embarressing and utterly reformist.

Also, the SP asked people to vote for the Good Friday Agreement, thus endorsing it. How can one be against sectarianism yet ask people to vote for that agreement, one which copper-fastens sectarianism and institutionalises it? You see, I actually make political criticisms, while all you can do is throw your toys our of your pram and repeat capitalist spun media articles.


Alarmist - good one - but then again I have never shot anyone because of their religion, nor have I shot anyone in an internal feud.

I highly doubt you've shot an imperialist soldier or a capitalist either, in fact I highly doubt you've done anything militant politically nor have you or your organisation carried you an action that in any way threatened the comfort zone of British imperialist and Irish capitalist elites. But sure, that wouldn't stop you're members salivating over the legacy of che guevara and others who the capitalists also tarnish with the same brush they have done with the IRSM. Maybe when the trendy left in Ireland actually do something of significance they might gain the compliment that comes from being slandered in the press. The trendy left in Ireland are as useful in the fight against capitalism as a chocolate teapot.


The INLA did untold damage to the cause of socialism over the past 30 years - the fact that those who support the IRSM cannot recognise that reality demonstrates the political stupidity of the organisation.

Again, excellent point. And tell me this, what have the SP ever done for socialism in Ireland? Not have a shave or a wash and turn up to a strike/demo and try and hijack it for their own politically sectarian gains? If only we had listened to the SP and fought imperialism with flower power we would have a socialist republic by now.

[Soldier of life]

Ok thankyou, thats probably one of the most mature responses you've made.

I'm not asking you to support the INLA, I don't support a lot of there actions (the infighting for instance and those who formed the IPLO), but I do support some of there efforts. Same with the Provos, though I agree with even less of what they did. All of the armed republican groups could of been more effective and were all flawed. Some of there actions were pointless and even set the struggle back further. And the infighting with the IPLO set the INLA back even further. I accept that. But I still belive in freeing the people, and the British goverment will not let go of there intrests in Ireland without a fight. I would prefer to see that fight conducted via education, unity and communities working together. I hope thats what will now happen, rather than the use of bombs and bullets.

But you counteract yourself in there... "The relgious background of members does not dictate whether an organisation is sectarian or not - its character and political outlook does" but then use " I have never shot anyone because of their religion" as part of your argument?

As for seperating IRSM from the examples of Protestants who fought for Ireland freedom... Jack White and George Gilmore (sorry, I added him to my previous list before I'd seen your response to that post) were both members of the Republican Congress and helped to try to steer Irish Republicanisim back to the left. Sam Maquire was a member of the Irish Republican brotherhood.

Seamus Costello was a commited socialist and the IRSP belive themselves to be direct descendents of the Irish Socialist Republican Party. It was formed by republicans, socialists, and trade unionists. Not a bunch of bloody thirsty pyscho's.


And indeed many fantastic people have been members of the IRSP along with Seamus, like Bernadette McAliskey and Tony Gregory. Hardly psychos, in fact 2 of the most respected people in Ireland in their time in their respective regions among the working class.

Connolly's own daughter referred to Costello as being the only one she ever met that truly understood what her father meant when he spoke about the freedom of the Irish people, strange compliment to give a psycho who was the head of the INLA no?

But even when Seamus was alive, he was accused of all these things that Jolly Red repeats, he was called a criminal, sectarian gunman, you name it, and not just by the capitalists but also be the reformist Irish left too.

It is true what Connolly once said, apostles of freedom are ever-idolized when dead, yet crucified when living. The childish ramblings of a trendy Irish reformist is hardly going to worry those who had the balls to engage imperialism/capitalism head on through arms in the fight for a socialist republic.

[Soldier of life]

The sectarian nature of the Socialist Party in Ireland:

Here is an extract from an article from the SP's paper, with regards to Orange Order marches in the North of Ireland, sourced and everything for your convenience.

''
'Town and village centers, even in predominantly Catholic areas, must be neutral spaces open to everyone'

'Northern Ireland after the general election', Daniel Waldon. Socialist View, Spring 2010, P.15.


So according to the Socialist Party, even in areas where the vast majority of people are Catholic, these communitites must accomodate the flag waving days of extremely sectarian,bigoted,reactionary and pro-imperialist organisations like the Orange Order. These parades have been forced through such areas before with the help of the imperialist British police force, often leaving nationalist communitites under siege.

This demonstrates how the SP attempt to appease reaction,imperialism and bigotry and how they support sectarianism.

Notice Jolly Red how all I have to do to discredit the reformist nonsense of your party is to quote a recent article from your party paper, yet when you attack the IRSP it is just based on assumptions emanting from capitalist propaganda. Oppose the Socialist Party, oppose sectarian headbangers!

[Jolly Red Giant]

The sectarian nature of the Socialist Party in Ireland:

Here is an extract from an article from the SP's paper, with regards to Orange Order marches in the North of Ireland, sourced and everything for your convenience.

''
'Town and village centers, even in predominantly Catholic areas, must be neutral spaces open to everyone'

'Northern Ireland after the general election', Daniel Waldon. Socialist View, Spring 2010, P.15.


So according to the Socialist Party, even in areas where the vast majority of people are Catholic, these communitites must accomodate the flag waving days of extremely sectarian,bigoted,reactionary and pro-imperialist organisations like the Orange Order. These parades have been forced through such areas before with the help of the imperialist British police force, often leaving nationalist communitites under siege.

This demonstrates how the SP attempt to appease reaction,imperialism and bigotry and how they support sectarianism.

Notice Jolly Red how all I have to do to discredit the reformist nonsense of your party is to quote a recent article from your party paper, yet when you attack the IRSP it is just based on assumptions emanting from capitalist propaganda. Oppose the Socialist Party, oppose sectarian headbangers!

I will deal with the other nonsense when I have the time - but let's get straight to dealing with this rant.

Given you strident condemnation of the Orange Order (an assessment that reasonably accurate) let me ask you why is it that you and other pro-republicans demand that the Orange Order are only prevented from marching in 'Catholic' areas? Should the Orange Order not be prevented from marching everywhere? and why not demand that they should be banned from holding any marches?

Similarly, if sectarian marches by the Orange Order are to be condemned, what about marches by sectarian nationalist organisations? should they not also be condemned? should sectarian nationalist marches also be prevented from marching through nationalist areas?

Northern Ireland is a sectarian statelet. Sectarianism exists and is perpetrated against both communities. Parades are held by sectarian organisations from both communities, many not contentious, some from both sides are contentious. Sectarians in the two communities have used contentious parades to whip up sectarianism on both sides of the divide. Sectarians have also used parades as part of a turf war over territory that has been going on since the begining of the troubles, but particularly over the past 20 years. And the people who suffer from this sectarianism are the working class from both communities.

You can quote one line from a CWI article about parades all you want - the position of the CWI is clear - We are not for the victory of one sectarian view over another. We are for the isolation and defeat of the hardline intransigents on both sides and for the united interests of the working class to take precedence over narrow sectarian interests. That is where we have stood over the past forty years and that is where we stand today.

[Soldier of life]

I will deal with the other nonsense when I have the time - but let's get straight to dealing with this rant.

Given you strident condemnation of the Orange Order (an assessment that reasonably accurate) let me ask you why is it that you and other pro-republicans demand that the Orange Order are only prevented from marching in 'Catholic' areas? Should the Orange Order not be prevented from marching everywhere? and why not demand that they should be banned from holding any marches?

Of course they should be banned out of hand, Republican Socialists seek to destroy loyalism and indeed sectarianism in Ireland. The OO should not be allowed to march in any part of Ireland. The reason the 'nationalist/catholic' community was highlighted is because it shows the lengths that the SP are willing to go to appease bigotry, sectarianism and loyalism as a whole, even to the point where they believe sectarian marches should be allowed in areas where 100% of the community despise them and wants them banned.


Similarly, if sectarian marches by the Orange Order are to be condemned, what about marches by sectarian nationalist organisations? should they not also be condemned? should sectarian nationalist marches also be prevented from marching through nationalist areas?

Of course they should, Republican Socialists oppose sectarianism whether it wraps itself in green or orange. Groups like the AOH a case in point.


Northern Ireland is a sectarian statelet. Sectarianism exists and is perpetrated against both communities.

That statement is correct, however we now see an order of things the SP in effect endorsed through their support for the Belfast Agreement.


Parades are held by sectarian organisations from both communities, many not contentious, some from both sides are contentious. Sectarians in the two communities have used contentious parades to whip up sectarianism on both sides of the divide. Sectarians have also used parades as part of a turf war over territory that has been going on since the begining of the troubles, but particularly over the past 20 years. And the people who suffer from this sectarianism are the working class from both communities.

But here is a contradiction, how can you outline an analysis that is pretty much identical to that of the IRSP with regard to sectarianism on both sides of the divide and the role of sectarianism within imperialism, with your very organisation believing that not only should such sectarian marches be allowed, they should even be allowed in Catholic areas who are the victims of those who propogate that sectarianism. The two quite simply don't add up.


You can quote one line from a CWI article about parades all you want - the position of the CWI is clear - We are not for the victory of one sectarian view over another. We are for the isolation and defeat of the hardline intransigents on both sides and for the united interests of the working class to take precedence over narrow sectarian interests. That is where we have stood over the past forty years and that is where we stand today.

The IRSP think similarly, however the IRSP back this up through policy in relation to Orange sectarian marches, and indeed any sectarian march. The IRSP holds that such marches have no place in Ireland, that they are not part of our 'culture' as some may like to claim [like SF], they are diametrically opposed to the progressive ideals of national liberation and socialism and the mindset behind them must be destroyed. That is a proper anti-sectarian position, the SP could learn a thing or two from it, rather than pandering to these sectarian eejits and their triumphalist days out.

I'm glad at this point you have decided to engage politically, makes for a breath of fresh air from resorting to childish insults and assumptions based on capitalist spin.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Of course they should be banned out of hand,
So, as a socialist, you oppose the right of assembly?



Of course they should, Republican Socialists oppose sectarianism whether it wraps itself in green or orange. Groups like the AOH a case in point.
And again - you oppose the right of groups to march simply because to disagree with them politically?



That statement is correct, however we now see an order of things the SP in effect endorsed through their support for the Belfast Agreement.
A cursory glance at CWI/SP material would demonstrate that we do not support the GFA. There is a difference between supporting a sectarian agreement and arguing for a tactical vote in favour to avoid providing sectarian paramilitaries with ammunition to re-ignite their campaign of individual terror. The GFA will eventually collapse, the job of socialists is to build unity between the catholic and protestant working class before that happens in order to avoid a return to a sectarian murder campaign (probably on a scale not seen previously).



But here is a contradiction, how can you outline an analysis that is pretty much identical to that of the IRSP with regard to sectarianism on both sides of the divide and the role of sectarianism within imperialism,
With all due respect - the position of the CWI is nothing like that of the IRSP.


with your very organisation believing that not only should such sectarian marches be allowed, they should even be allowed in Catholic areas who are the victims of those who propogate that sectarianism.
The issue of sectarian marches can only be dealt with through discussion between the parties involved, not by whipping up sectarian strife. The issue of marches is being used by sectarians on both sides in a sectarian turf war over territory and as long as this is allowed to continue sectarian strife in the north (including over parades) will continue. To come down on one side of the sectarian divide is to support the continuation of the sectarian divide. The CWI does not support loyalist parades marching through catholic areas, nor does it support nationalist marches through protestant areas. But it does support the right of organisations to march (except for fascists) irrrespective of their political outlook.

It is rubbish to suggest that one community 'owns' a major arterial route or that one community 'owns' a town centre. It is taking the sectarian divide to its ultimate extreme - it is arguing that catholics should not walk through protestant areas and protestant should not walk through cathoic areas. The right to assembly and march is a basic civil right and one that should be defended by all socialists - if you don't then the next people to be deprived of that right will be those very same socialists.



The IRSP think similarly, however the IRSP back this up through policy in relation to Orange sectarian marches, and indeed any sectarian march. The IRSP holds that such marches have no place in Ireland, that they are not part of our 'culture' as some may like to claim [like SF], they are diametrically opposed to the progressive ideals of national liberation and socialism and the mindset behind them must be destroyed.
But here again - you are deciding who should have a right to march - you can oppose sectarian marches, while at the same time defending the right to march, the right to assembly, basic civil rights. You defeat sectarians, not by banning them (or attempting to batter them off the street) but by defeating them with political action, action that demonstrates the nature of capitalism and the advantages of socialism in protecting the interests of all working class people - and you do so from a socialist, rather than a republican stand-point.


I'm glad at this point you have decided to engage politically, makes for a breath of fresh air from resorting to childish insults and assumptions based on capitalist spin.
You will get 'childish' retorts when you make 'stupid' claims and statements. I have no problem engaging in political debate if it is conducted in a fraternal manner, demonstrating respect from all sides and deviod of dogmatic ranting. And I will state again, all my criticisms of the INLA come from personal experience of some of the individuals involved (not from 'capitalist spin'). In my opinion the INLA has been a significant hinderence to attempts to combat sectarianism in the North and those that I have personal knowledge of as members of the IRSP and INLA have done diddly squat to advance the workers movement in any way (I would even go so far as to say that most have been a downright nuisance in efforts to build various campaigns).

If I have the time and inclination over the next couple of weeks I might conduct a critique of the Ta Power document. If the IRSP has any other documents that outline its political perspective and outlook perhaps you could provide a link. If you want to have a constructive debate on the national question in Ireland and the differences between the CWI and left republicans, I suggest that you read some of the stuff on the SP Northern website, in particular the pamphlets written by Peter Hadden.

[The Grey Blur]

The INLA's campaign was sectarian not in the sense that it didn't contain individual members from a protestant background but that its actions (bombs, sectarian shootings) whether intentional or not contributed to the situation of entrenched sectarianism that exists in the North today. I don't doubt the socialist credentials of individual IRSP/INLA members, nor would I the left of the Provos or some of the Sticks or even dare I say individual PUP supporters, but it isn't only through words but in deeds that a group is judged. If we agree that the only way to a Socialist United Ireland is by winning the protestant worker to a class conscious position then you have to admit that individual terrorism as a tactic failed. Not only did it fail but by its very undemocratic nature it led to a political degeneration (compounded by the British Forces efforts) where the gun took precedence over politics within the IRSP/INLA. The inevitable result of this was the feuds, gangsterism, sectarianism etc. In any case, the armed struggle is over, the question is now how the IRSP is going to orientate towards the class struggle in Ireland today.

I wouldn't agree entirely with the SP's role in NI but I think you're being a tad hysterical in your attacks on them. Same goes for JRG's more baseless insults towards the IRSP.

[IrishWorker]

Just to put the record strait on a few issues here. In the INLA cessation statement 12 years ago the Army openly and honestly said its "actions as a liberation army fell far short of what they should have been." and nobody is disputing this but some posters seem intent on constant trolling and slander of the Army their agenda is clear for all to see.



Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) "Ceasefire Declaration", issued on Saturday 22 August 1998



"We have accepted the advice and analysis of the Irish Republican Socialist Party that the conditions for armed struggle do not exist. The Irish National Liberation Army has now shifted from the position of defence and retaliation to the position of complete ceasefire. We have instructed all our units to desist from offensive actions from noon today. The Irish National Liberation Army is now on ceasefire.

We take this historic opportunity to pay tribute to our fallen comrades who gave their lives in the struggle. To their families we share their pride and sorrow.

We wish to praise first the courage, loyalty and commitment of our volunteers. For nearly 25 years they have been in the forefront of the anti-imperialist struggle and have upheld the principles of republican socialism.

In armed combat, in prison protest on the blanket in hunger strikes, in prison escapes, on picket lines and in mass demonstrations, they have at all times upheld the right of the whole of the Irish people for self-determination. To the wider public who through support and solidarity in such committees as the Relatives Action Committees, the National H-Block and Armagh Committees, Relatives for Justice and other solidarity committees around the world, we thank them for the support they gave to our prisoners.

To those prisoners in gaol, in Portlaoise and Long Kesh we offer our heartfelt thanks for their loyalty and steadfastness throughout the years. Though scorned, slandered and derided, marginalised and demonised, they stuck by the principles of republican socialism. We salute their courage.

We also acknowledge and praise the role played by the families and friends and supporters of our members. Through no fault of their own they have had to suffer much over the years. We applaud them and fervently wish they never have to endure such suffering again.

In calling this cessation we recognise that the political situation has changed since the formation of the INLA. We recognise that armed struggle can never be the only option for revolutionaries. In the new conditions prevailing it is only right to respond to the new conditions. Those conditions demand a ceasefire.

Although we, for our part believe that the Good Friday Agreement was not worth the sacrifices of the past 30 years and are still politically opposed to it, the people of the island of Ireland have spoken clearly as to their wishes.

The working classes have borne the brunt of the consequences of the war for the past three decades. They have also suffered repression, social deprivation, unemployment and poverty. We recognise their desire for a cessation of violence expressed through the referendum and for a peaceful future.

The onus is now on all political parties, governments and observers to ensure that the democratic wishes of the Irish people are upheld. This includes all armed groups. Therefore we have taken this ceasefire decision to take account of the people's desires.

Now we turn to the consequences of our part in the war. We acknowledge and admit faults and grievous errors in our prosecution of the war. Innocent people were killed and injured and at times our actions as a liberation army fell far short of what they should have been.

For this we as republicans, as socialists and as revolutionaries do offer a sincere, heartfelt and genuine apology. It was never our intention, desire or wish to become embroiled in sectarian or internecine warfare. We accept responsibility for our part in actions which hindered the struggle. Those actions should never have happened.

We have, however, nothing to apologise for in taking the war to the British and their loyalist henchmen. Those who preyed on the blood of nationalists paid a heavy price. However, the will of the Irish people is clear. It is now time to silence the guns and allow the working classes the time and opportunity to advance their demands and their needs.

In the new conditions prevailing we will support the politics of the IRSP who have our full confidence and support in the words of our founder Seamus Costello, when speaking about his class, the Irish working class, "We are nothing and we shall be everything"."

Also there has been allot of unsubstantiated shit talk on this thread about feuds.
The INLA was NEVER ever involved in any internal feuding they have been militarily attacked by counter revolutionaries on a number of occasions by the Official IRA, Irish Peoples Liberation Organisation and an expelled leadership who called themselves GHQ staff they declared a ceasefire from the Dock in a Dublin court for personal reasons and were democratically summarily dismissed by the INLA.
The INLA fought a bitter war on all fronts attacking the British Army the RUC NATO the British Government and Loyalist reactionary's I for one am very proud of them.
The only INLA volunteer who died at the hands of the INLA were those coutmartialed and executed for collaborating with the enemy.

[No pasarán]

It's good to see this debate becoming a wee more sensible. We don't need any shite flinging from either side. None of the Irps or any associated chara are suggesting that the INLA was not flawed and was not as successful as it could of been in achiveing its aims. As several people have pointed out several times previously, the actions of the CRF or the IPLO (in particular Gerard Steenson) have been condemmed. Unfourtunately the INLA, despite the intial superior politics of the IRSP never had the millitry muscle or the discipline or the PIRA. Despite the leadership of Sinn Fein, which has shown its true colours now (Republican Socialists... bit like how the Labour party in Britain were once socialists untill they got into power again), the Provos were successful enough to resist the British army and their most ruthless enforcers the SAS for over 25 years. Which is why I think they had greater support from the republican community, they were simply more effective and maybe more ruthless with there internal controls? It is a shame the IRSM didn't have the support the shinners have and that Seamus Costello was shot by those who should of been fighting alongside him from the Official IRA and The Workers Party.

[howblackisyourflag]

It's good to see this debate becoming a wee more sensible. We don't need any shite flinging from either side. None of the Irps or any associated chara are suggesting that the INLA was not flawed and was not as successful as it could of been in achiveing its aims. As several people have pointed out several times previously, the actions of the CRF or the IPLO (in particular Gerard Steenson) have been condemmed. Unfourtunately the INLA, despite the intial superior politics of the IRSP never had the millitry muscle or the discipline or the PIRA. Despite the leadership of Sinn Fein, which has shown its true colours now (Republican Socialists... bit like how the Labour party in Britain were once socialists untill they got into power again), the Provos were successful enough to resist the British army and their most ruthless enforcers the SAS for over 25 years. Which is why I think they had greater support from the republican community, they were simply more effective and maybe more ruthless with there internal controls? It is a shame the IRSM didn't have the support the shinners have and that Seamus Costello was shot by those who should of been fighting alongside him from the Official IRA and The Workers Party.


I just read about Seamus Costello on wikipedia. The left really has suicidal tendencies sometimes doesnt it?

[No pasarán]

I just read about Seamus Costello on wikipedia. The left really has suicidal tendencies sometimes doesnt it?

http://www.irsm.org/irsp/costello/ is a much better source of yer man, his party after all. I can not understand why he was kicked out of the officials? Maybe if he had gone onto lead them the official sinn fein/ workers party/ whatever other names its ever had could of gone on to really achive something and regained the popular support the provisional sinn fein and PIRA took away?

[The Grey Blur]

No Pasarán you should really read Lost Revolution, you'd get a lot out of it. It goes into quite a bit of detail around the Stick/Irp split. In simple terms it was a split over the future of the armed struggle with the Sticks adopting a long-term ceasefire and the Irps rejecting that approach but in reality it reflected a deeper political division over the nature of the state in the North, the nature of partition itself.


As several people have pointed out several times previously, the actions of the CRF or the IPLO (in particular Gerard Steenson) have been condemmed. I realise the IRSP condemned all those incidents, the point I'm trying to emphasise is that the whole structure, the very nature of paramilitarism, is fundamentally undemocratic. Combined with the loss of the political leadership to feuds/British attacks it resulted in a degeneration of the IRSP to the point where things like the IPLO split could occur. There's two ways of looking at it - the idealistic way that the feuds/gangsterism/sectarianism was a result of individual wayward elements or that it's the inevitable result of politics being subsumed to the military. When you've guns and the theoretical justification to carry out robberies, and no political mechanism to hold you accountable, that's what you're going to do.


Unfourtunately the INLA, despite the intial superior politics of the IRSPIn what way were the politics of the IRSP superior to those of PSF? In concrete terms, not just rhetorically.


never had the millitry muscle or the discipline or the PIRAIt's an irrelevant debate whether the INLA or the PIRA had the superior 'military muscle' or 'discipline' - armed struggle as a tactic failed. Do you think the INLA were shooting socialist bullets and the Provos green ones? Republicans from both made genuine sacrifices but the legacy of the armed struggle in concrete terms is a re-trenchment of sectarianism, without the liberation of a single blade of grass.


Despite the leadership of Sinn Fein, which has shown its true colours now (Republican Socialists... bit like how the Labour party in Britain were once socialists untill they got into power again)The SF leadership is showing its "true colours" in the sense that it's exhibiting the limits of petit-bourgeois nationalism, its failure to adopt a class analysis or approach means they've ended up in adminstering British rule in the North, with a unionist veto firmly in place, an institutionalised sectarianism and all the while implementing pro-business neo-liberal policies. Labour were not "socialists until they got back into power", the left were hounded out by Kinnock and later the Blairites well before they were re-elected in '97. Their election was actually trumpeted as vindicating the right-wing's view that a socialist Labour was unelectable.

I emphasise those two points because it wasn't just individual 'traitors' in both cases - both examples have been misconstrued in that simplistic way when really they exhibit deeper ideological splits which furthermore are based on real material conditions - the limits of a nationalism based on petit-bourgeois ideals in SF's case and the right-wing counterattack in the labour movement after the collapse of Stalinism.


the Provos were successful enough to resist the British army and their most ruthless enforcers the SAS for over 25 years. The stated aim of the Provos armed campaign was to remove the British presence from Ireland. So no, they were not 'successful', they categorically failed. That doesn't mean that the sacrifice of genuine republicans and socialist republicans shouldn't be acknowledged but the best way of honouring that sacrifice is to critically examine the history of republicanism in that period and where it failed. I think we can all agree that it was the worst elements of the armed struggle (the pub bombs, sectarian killings) and the lack of a class approach which isolated the struggle from the worker's movement generally in Ireland/Britain and specifically the protestant worker in the North. Even if we can't agree on the past then at least we can agree on the necessity of the class approach for left-republicanism today.


Which is why I think they had greater support from the republican community, they were simply more effective and maybe more ruthless with there internal controlsIt was purely a numbers game, the Provos were bigger on the ground and as the most obvious expression of the republican armed struggle grew exponentially around causes like the defence of catholic areas, internment, the hunger strikes etc. If you lived in the Bogside maybe you joined the INLA and in the Falls maybe you joined the PIRA or vice versa but for most young lads the politics wouldn't have been the immediate point, but getting their hands on the guns. The more elderly volunteers who had chosen a side after the Stick/Provo split were probably the most ideologically coherent, and of course a lot of political education happened in the prisons (Marxist study classes were set up on republican wings at various times). Here's a good quote from Ta Power that illustrates my point:

"...the mixture of 'politically naive apolitical' members in the six counties did not have any idea of essentially what the struggle was about. The membership was young, reckless, impressionable and eager militants, the army council was unable to provide a proper leadership to give revolutionary direction...it was a 'militaristic body' unable to give any other direction, other than 'Military Victory'!"

[No pasarán]

Guggghhh.. can't belive I was posting at 3 in the morning, I was supprisingly coherant considering I'd been in the pub till after 1... And now I'm awake at my usual hour, hangover or not... plus i left the computer on.

ANYWAYS...

I will get hold of a copy of that book, but the fact is I belive that the republicans did... as in 1916, what they thought was right. They took up arms and went on the attack. Of course mistakes were made again. Yet again, the Irish people have ended up with a goverment, who suit the intrerests of the powerful. When I said the pira were succesfull what I ment is they fought the british to a stalemate, whereby the british goverment were forced to concede to some of their demands. Hardly a great victory I know, a victory of sorts I guess? And INLA certainly didn't live up to their political wings potential unfourtunately. Maybe through not being selective enough with who they allowed into the membership as much as anything?

But I do agree it is time to move on, to try to change ireland as a whole. I have some great mates from unionists backgrounds in Belfast. One of them is a trade unionist, who is part of a cross community union, as he said 'troubles over or not... where else would a Linfield fan sit with a member of the Cliftonville board'. He's also been known to quote Connolly, even though he refers to his self as 'british'. The battle now, is to reach out to the unionist community as a whole and make them realise that we are used and abused by the system as it is now and that both the goverment of Ireland and Britain are not working for the people, but the powerful.

I actually agree with many of your points and maybe not as much as you but I have witnessed the horrors of the troubles. I know plenty of the 'lost generation'. I only hope my younger cousins and friends still in ulster/6 counties/ the north of ireland and those who grew up on the othersides of the peace lines can achive something better than what they have been brought up with. "Tiocfaidh ár lá", but not just for the republicans, but for all of the country to be free from both oppressive goverments. 'Our revenge will be the laughter of our children' as Bobby Sands put it.

[The Grey Blur]

Fair play. You should read the Ta Power document as well if you haven't already, it chimes with a lot of the criticisms I'm making. Here's a good version with a foreword from Gerry Ruddy putting it in context: http://www.marxist.com/Europe-old/ta_power_document.htm#_ftnref2

[No pasarán]

I've read extracts, I'll print it out, read it over breakfast and come back to that. I think that needs a seperate thread though...

[Jolly Red Giant]

Not for the first time left republicans are completely missing the point about the 'armed struggle'. The issue is not about the rights and wrongs of the 'armed struggle' - the issue is not about should socialists be willing to take up weapons against British Imperialism - the issue is not about what Marx, Lenin, mao or anyone else said about the 'national liberation struggle'.

The root cause of the problems that exist in Northern Ireland is British Imperialism. In essence the attitude adopted by left republicans (egged on by the ultra-lefts) is to say 'the Brits are occupying part of Ireland, let's get a gun and shoot them'. The justification for this is that the colonial oppressed have a right to engage in armed struggle against imperialism.

Left republicans are putting the cart before the horse on the basis that British Imperialism exists in Ireland and republicans have a duty to resist.

The question that should be posed is not how to resist British imperialism - but how to defeat British Imperialism?

When left republicans start addressing this question rather than condemning anyone who refuses to support the 'armed struggle' - then a sensible debate can take place.

[Soldier of life]

Not for the first time left republicans are completely missing the point about the 'armed struggle'. The issue is not about the rights and wrongs of the 'armed struggle' - the issue is not about should socialists be willing to take up weapons against British Imperialism - the issue is not about what Marx, Lenin, mao or anyone else said about the 'national liberation struggle'.

The root cause of the problems that exist in Northern Ireland is British Imperialism. In essence the attitude adopted by left republicans (egged on by the ultra-lefts) is to say 'the Brits are occupying part of Ireland, let's get a gun and shoot them'. The justification for this is that the colonial oppressed have a right to engage in armed struggle against imperialism.

Left republicans are putting the cart before the horse on the basis that British Imperialism exists in Ireland and republicans have a duty to resist.

The question that should be posed is not how to resist British imperialism - but how to defeat British Imperialism?

When left republicans start addressing this question rather than condemning anyone who refuses to support the 'armed struggle' - then a sensible debate can take place.

Something odd just happened, I actually fully agree here.

The IRSP are at the forefront in the Republican community in trying to persuade the traditional republican groups that they are engaging in a tactic that has failed, but far too often rationale debate is cast aside by these people with some Pearse quote like 'Ireland unfree shall never be at peace'. Unfortunately, proper and long-reaching political analysis is not something the current crop of armed republicans seem to even want to engage in.

An army like the IRA or INLA was never going to free Ireland, that is the reality and conclusion all republicans must come to. The British were never going to bow to such tactics, the ramifications of doing that internationally makes it just a non-starter. The only thing that can end partition and capitalism in Ireland is a mass workers movement, mobilised to end the occupation and to dismantle the current undemocratic institutions both North and South of the border. My personal believe with regard to what you refer to as 'individual terrorism', is that it may have a role to play in the future. However, unlike the past and unlike the way republicans have always placed arms on a pedastel, such actions must at all times be subservient to the mobilisation of workers, and only to aid that struggle, not lead it from above.

[Soldier of life]

And Jolly Red, your last reply to me can basically be summed up by your criticisms and questions on my feelings in relation to OO marches and the 'right of assembly'.

The simple and direct answer is NO, I don't believe sectarian bigots have the right to hold triumphalist marches which only serve to stir and perpetuate sectarian sentiment among working class people. That goes for the AOH or any other sectarian organisation. I would oppose any fascist march in Ireland, and I oppose the OO marching.

I believe we need a secular and pluralist 32 county socialist republic, where people are free to practise their religion...unless their beliefs impinge on the lives and rights of others. The likes of the OO do just that and they and their 'ideology' should be opposed outright.

[Woyzeck]

I will deal with the other nonsense when I have the time - but let's get straight to dealing with this rant.

Given you strident condemnation of the Orange Order (an assessment that reasonably accurate) let me ask you why is it that you and other pro-republicans demand that the Orange Order are only prevented from marching in 'Catholic' areas? Should the Orange Order not be prevented from marching everywhere? and why not demand that they should be banned from holding any marches?

They should be.


Northern Ireland is a sectarian statelet. Sectarianism exists and is perpetrated against both communities. Parades are held by sectarian organisations from both communities, many not contentious, some from both sides are contentious. Sectarians in the two communities have used contentious parades to whip up sectarianism on both sides of the divide. Sectarians have also used parades as part of a turf war over territory that has been going on since the begining of the troubles, but particularly over the past 20 years. And the people who suffer from this sectarianism are the working class from both communities.

You can quote one line from a CWI article about parades all you want - the position of the CWI is clear - We are not for the victory of one sectarian view over another. We are for the isolation and defeat of the hardline intransigents on both sides and for the united interests of the working class to take precedence over narrow sectarian interests. That is where we have stood over the past forty years and that is where we stand today.Incredible. What sectarian nationalist parades/marches are you referring to? Something tells me it isn't the AOH. Comparing the OO et al to even the most right-wing and deluded of Republican organisations is frankly the type of bullshit I've come to expect from CWI in relation to Northern Ireland.

[Jolly Red Giant]

An army like the IRA or INLA was never going to free Ireland, that is the reality and conclusion all republicans must come to. The British were never going to bow to such tactics, the ramifications of doing that internationally makes it just a non-starter.
Again something that the leadership of SF actually stumbled onto about 20 years ago - and something many left republicans cannot digest - British Imperialism has not strategic interests in Ireland - it would much prefer to dominate economically rather than have to commit huge resources to maintaining the Northern state in existance. The problem for British Imperialism is that it is unable to extract itself from the mess it created. It fostered sectarianism in order to divide the working class and mitigate the threat of proletarian revolution. But it created a monster that it was no longer and is no longer able to control. Imperialism has shifted from domination to containment - and by that containment of sectarianism.


The only thing that can end partition and capitalism in Ireland is a mass workers movement, mobilised to end the occupation and to dismantle the current undemocratic institutions both North and South of the border.
And that poses the question - how do you build this mass workers movement? What strategies and tactics need to be employed?


My personal believe with regard to what you refer to as 'individual terrorism', is that it may have a role to play in the future. However, unlike the past and unlike the way republicans have always placed arms on a pedastel, such actions must at all times be subservient to the mobilisation of workers, and only to aid that struggle, not lead it from above.
There is no place for acts of 'individual terror' within the workers movement and within the process of proletarian revolution - they are completely counter productive. Certainly it will be necessary for the arming of the workers movement to defend communities and combat the state - but that is a completely different tactic to engaging in random bombings and shootings.

The CWI supported the decomissioning of weapons simply as a process of getting weapons out of the hands of paramilitary organisations and the counter-productive actions they engaged in - if these weapons had been held by local defence forces under the democratic control of working class communities then the CWI would have opposed handing these weapons over to the state. Indeed in the initial stages of the 'peace process' the CWI called simply for the decommissioning of the semtex (which could never be used for anything other than offensive actions) while calling for the remaining weapons to be placed under the democratic control of local communities.



The simple and direct answer is NO, I don't believe sectarian bigots have the right to hold triumphalist marches which only serve to stir and perpetuate sectarian sentiment among working class people. That goes for the AOH or any other sectarian organisation. I would oppose any fascist march in Ireland, and I oppose the OO marching.
But here we are again - the Orange Order and the AOH are not fascist organisations. Without a doubt there would be fascist elements within the OO (I don't know enough about the AOH to comment) but they do not hold sway within that organisation. As such these organisations are entitled to assemble and march. Again this is not to say that any sectarian organisation is entitled to march through a local community in a triumphalist fashion - but marchers are entitled to follow main arterial routes and town centres. These are not 'owned' by any sectarian faction and socialists should oppose any attempt to treat them as so. To support such a position is to foster sectarianism and the driving out of one community as part of the ongoing turf war. I recently read that over the past three or four years practically the entire Protestant population of Rasharkin have left the village. This is what comes from the current sectarian turf war over territory. It comes from claims by one community that they 'own' the village, street, juction, town centre etc.

The argument being made by both sides over sectarian marches is that each side have rights - the CWI has consistantly stated that the working class in the North also have rights - the right not to be hemmed into sectarian ghettoes - the right to be able to walk the street irrespective of the religion of the people who are walking beside them - the right not to be labelled because of the religious background. These rights are fundementally ignored by the sectarians on both sides who whip up sectarianism over marches to serve their own political agenda. The CWI has consistantly called for dialogue over contentious marches - in many incidences sectarians on one or both sides have been unwilling to engage, but where it has happened agreements have been reached that have diffused the situation. Socialists should be demanding that communities are not held to ransom by sectarians on either side and that dialogue must take place (with an active part being played by those living in working class communities) to assist in undermining the conflict over marches and the powerbase of sectarians in the communities.


I believe we need a secular and pluralist 32 county socialist republic, where people are free to practise their religion...unless their beliefs impinge on the lives and rights of others. The likes of the OO do just that and they and their 'ideology' should be opposed outright.
And again - I pose the question - how do you achieve these objectives? - do you do it by a blanket ban on all marches (including for example republican marches commemorating 1916 or the hunger strikes) - or just orange marches and AOH marches (because they are the only real sectarian ones) - or by undermining the sectarians by bringing the two communities together to work for solutions to their problems, be it contentious marches, job losses, cuts in services etc.



Incredible. What sectarian nationalist parades/marches are you referring to? Something tells me it isn't the AOH. Comparing the OO et al to even the most right-wing and deluded of Republican organisations is frankly the type of bullshit I've come to expect from CWI in relation to Northern Ireland.
Here is hoping that your rant brought you the relief that your evacutation deserved. :p

[The Grey Blur]

I'd just like to say that the Orange Order split in 1907 over the Docker's strike, the working class members in Belfast set up an "independent lodge" and cooperated with their catholic co-strikers. It is based on sectarian and communalist ideas and they shouldn't have the right to triumphally march through catholic areas, but it isn't fascist. Calling for a 'ban' is ridiculous as well since only the bourgeois state could bring that about in the present period and we all know the failures of relying on the state to tackle "fascism" (hint: they use the same laws against workers'/socialist organisations).

[Woyzeck]

Here is hoping that your rant brought you the relief that your evacutation deserved. :p

Yeah up yours too buddy.