'The Irish Question'

[No pasarán]

Since most threads that have anything to do with the north of ireland seem to get sidetracked into debates about various armed groups (though mostly the validity of the INLA), accusations of sectarianisim and occasionaly unfounded statements I thought it was time for a thread to debate the future of Irish unity. What are your thoughts on how and where Ireland has to change? Do you think there can ever be a united country? What previous stratergies can still be applied today?

[Idle Bandit]

Only a socialist revolution throughout the British & Irish Isles and the whole of Europe can guarantee Irish self-determination.

[Palingenisis]

Only a socialist revolution throughout the British & Irish Isles and the whole of Europe can guarantee Irish self-determination.

I cant stand Trots...But I do put my hope for Irish Freedom in the English, Welsh, Scottish and Cornish working class.

[Idle Bandit]

I cant stand Trots...

You'd swear it was some sort of vegetable or fruit...

What was that you were saying about "Stalinism" being a meaningless term?

But let's not derail the good comrade's thread on such an important topic.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The Irish national question and the question of socialism in the British Isles are united, under capitalism there can be no 32 county free state, and the only way to achieve socialism in Ireland is via independence. The answer to your question is simple: any real socialist supports the struggle for a free and united Ireland, because you can not have socialism without a republic being established. In my opinion socialism and republicanism must take equal priority, however I also think that the first step towards building socialism in Ireland would be establishing a republic. Finally: Anyone who claims to support socialism and opposes Irish unity and the republican movement in general is an idiot.

[Idle Bandit]

Finally: Anyone who claims to support socialism and opposes Irish unity and the republican movement in general is an idiot.

Define "the republican movement in general", please.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Any and all genuine struggles for a republic, preferably of the socialist variety. It's pretty simple.

[Idle Bandit]

Any and all genuine struggles for a republic, preferably of the socialist variety. It's pretty simple.

So NOT the Republican Movement as it exists today then?

[Palingenisis]

Define "the republican movement in general", please.

Those who are trying to achieve this...

"We define the national liberation struggle as that struggle which seeks to force a British military withdrawal from the occupied six counties. The destruction of the pro-British loyalist armed forces. The withdrawal of British political influence from all parts of Ireland. The ending the partition of the island of Ireland and the overturning of both the partionist governments presently administering political affairs of Ireland. The gaining of collective economic control of the nation's resources by the nation as a whole and the eradication of any control or influence exercised by foreign capitalists over any aspect of the Irish economy."

[Palingenisis]

So NOT the Republican Movement as it exists today then?

The Republican Network for Unity, the Irish Republican Socialist Party and Eirigi...i.e. the majiority of the Republican movement...identifiy as socialist if not Marxist and are very involved in working class work place and community struggles. Motionless cares about Ireland and so understands a little more of the reality here than you do.

[Idle Bandit]

"the eradication of any control or influence exercised by foreign capitalists over any aspect of the Irish economy."

The use of these terms in this context is unhelpful and is typical of the language of nationalism. We need the eradication of capitalism full stop.

Not "foreign" capitalism from the "Irish" economy.

[Palingenisis]

Im pretty suspicious and dismissive of "leftists" who ignore so many thousand Imperialist troops sationed in my country backed up by an ultra-reactionary idealolgy of hatred towards anything "Irish" and unflinching loyality to the UK state. Before you say anything my family is mostly protestant and I have relations on both sides of the divide in the occupied six counties. I find sectarianism bizzare and sick...But sicker still is the Imperialist domination and idealolgy that breeds it. Also I have nothing at all against decent working English people.

[Spawn of Stalin]

So NOT the Republican Movement as it exists today then?

This isn't the way I see it, I am sympathetic to several different republican outfits, but I mostly identify as a supporter of the IRSP, who are about as socialist and republican as you can get. You'll probably disagree based on the fact that they have "Stalinists" among their ranks but no matter. Your opinion is clearly that there exists no republican socialist movement in Ireland today, and to be frank, it isn't a matter of opinions, it is a matter of fact, that there is a republican socialist movement, a rather large one with a real history of struggle dating back to the days of Connolly and beyond.

[Idle Bandit]

The Republican Network for Unity, the Irish Republican Socialist Party and Eirigi...i.e. the majiority of the Republican movement...identifiy as socialist if not Marxist and are very involved in working class work place and community struggles.

The IRSP are the best out of that bad bunch and even then there's little substance behind the rhetoric. As for them being the majority of the Republican movement: Sinn Féin easily dwarfs all three of those organisations combined.


Motionless cares about Ireland and so understands a little more of the reality here than you do.

And you base that on what exactly?

[mosfeld]

The use of these terms in this context is unhelpful and is typical of the language of nationalism. We need the eradication of capitalism full stop.

Not "foreign" capitalism from the "Irish" economy.

If it means anything to you, that guy in your avatar, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels all supported Irish republicanism in their epoch.


To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie without all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.--to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a "putsch".

Lenin on Ireland by L. Proyect (http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/race/lenin_ireland.htm)
The British Liberals and Ireland by V.I. Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/12.htm)

[Palingenisis]

The use of these terms in this context is unhelpful and is typical of the language of nationalism. We need the eradication of capitalism full stop.

Not "foreign" capitalism from the "Irish" economy.

I totally agree with you.

The whole premise of non-Socialist Irish Republicianism at this stage in history is laughable...however such clowns sadly exist. They are not living in the real world anymore than the "socialists" who ignore the reality of the occupation and all that goes with it.

[Idle Bandit]

Im pretty suspicious and dismissive of "leftists" who ignore so many thousand Imperialist troops sationed in my country backed up by an ultra-reactionary idealolgy of hatred towards anything "Irish" and unflinching loyality to the UK state. Before you say anything my family is mostly protestant and I have relations on both sides of the divide in the occupied six counties. I find sectarianism bizzare and sick...But sicker still is the Imperialist domination and idealolgy that breeds it. Also I have nothing at all against decent working English people.

Is this directed at me?

[Spawn of Stalin]

The use of these terms in this context is unhelpful and is typical of the language of nationalism. We need the eradication of capitalism full stop.

Not "foreign" capitalism from the "Irish" economy.

So you're using your internationalism as an excuse to deny the existence of an Irish economy? And the presence of foreign troops? There IS a difference between reactionary nationalism and the kind of nationalism that is often coupled with anti-imperialism, you know that, right?

[Palingenisis]

The IRSP are the best out of that bad bunch and even then there's little substance behind the rhetoric. As for them being the majority of the Republican movement: Sinn Féin easily dwarfs all three of those organisations combined.

And you base that on what exactly?

Im fed up of defending the IRSP...They are 100 per cent working class and 100 per cent against a capitalist Ireland. They dont discriminate between revisionism and socialism though which is another issue...But its not just rhethoric.

Provisional Sinn Fein last time I looked were administrating British rule in Ireland and calling Irish rebels traitors....Republican they are not.

[Idle Bandit]

If it means anything to you, that guy in your avatar, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels all supported Irish republicanism in their epoch.

Not uncritically, however. Which is the point, and one entirely missed by Stalinists at that.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The IRSP are the best out of that bad bunch and even then there's little substance behind the rhetoric.

I'd like to see some hard facts to back up this statement, both the labelling of the republicans as a "bad bunch" and accusing the IRSP of being devoid of any substance, pretty bold claims. But just out of interest and since you think the republican movement is so bloody useless, what is your proposed strategy for a united, and socialist Ireland?

[Palingenisis]

So you're using your internationalism as an excuse to deny the existence of an Irish economy? And the presence of foreign troops? There IS a difference between reactionary nationalism and the kind of nationalism that is often coupled with anti-imperialism, you know that, right?

Well it was a quote for an IRSP pamphlet and that paragraph ended...

"The recognition of a separate Irish cultural identity and the establishment of revolutionary 32- county socialist republic."

However there are good Republicans in RSF and the 32 csm who arent socialists...But their Republicanism is based on romanticism and not real social conditions. You cant have national liberation or socialism in Ireland with the other so in a very big way its foolish to seperate them.

[Palingenisis]

Is this directed at me?

More or less.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Not uncritically, however. Which is the point, and one entirely missed by Stalinists at that.

"Stalinists" are uncritical of nothing. Stalin himself promoted self-criticism as a necessity within the international socialist movement. Regardless, I have no idea how you manage to bring up Stalinism in a debate about the Irish national question. It is entirely irrelevant which dead Soviet we uphold.

[Idle Bandit]

So you're using your internationalism as an excuse to deny the existence of an Irish economy?

Nope.


And the presence of foreign troops?

Nope.


There IS a difference between reactionary nationalism and the kind of nationalism that is often coupled with anti-imperialism, you know that, right?

If by that you mean a progressive form of nationalism then I entirely disagree, and I think the tragic histories of the national liberation struggles of the past century bear out this fact. And that is why I give only conditional military support and no political support to nationalist movements/organisations that are genuinely fighting imperialism.

[Palingenisis]

"Stalinists" are uncritical of nothing. Stalin himself promoted self-criticism as a necessity within the international socialist movement. Regardless, I have no idea how you manage to bring up Stalinism in a debate about the Irish national question. It is entirely irrelevant which dead Soviet we uphold.

Both Red Action and the Class War Federation who were a lot further from "Stalinism" back in the day were a lot less uncritical of the Provisionals than I would have been.

[Palingenisis]

Whats wrong with loving England if its not in a chauvanist way?

[Idle Bandit]

I have no idea how you manage to bring up Stalinism in a debate about the Irish national question. It is entirely irrelevant which dead Soviet we uphold.

Says it all really.

[Palingenisis]

If by that you mean a progressive form of nationalism then I entirely disagree, and I think the tragic histories of the national liberation struggles of the past century bear out this fact. And that is why I give only conditional military support and no political support to nationalist movements/organisations that are genuinely fighting imperialism.

There is a type of Irish nationalism that is coupled with anti-imperialism that is utterly reactionary, that most Republicans spit at. We have to discriminate between reactionary "cultural" nationalism and the anti-imperialism of oppressed nations.

[Idle Bandit]

More or less.

Why? I'm completely for Irish self-determination and completely against British imperialism's military and economic domination of Ireland. Is it because I identify myself as a Trotskyist that you automatically presume I'm going to equate the oppressed with the oppressor, or water down the issue in some other fashion?

[Palingenisis]

"Stalinists" are uncritical of nothing. Stalin himself promoted self-criticism as a necessity within the international socialist movement. Regardless, I have no idea how you manage to bring up Stalinism in a debate about the Irish national question. It is entirely irrelevant which dead Soviet we uphold.

Well Stalin did write the classic work on the national question mo chara...;).

[Palingenisis]

Why? I'm completely for Irish self-determination and completely against British imperialism's military and economic domination of Ireland. Is it because I identify myself as a Trotskyist that you automatically presume I'm going to equate the oppressed with the oppressor, or water down the issue in some other fashion?

Because Trotskyites most of the time spend a lot of energy distancing themselves from Republicanism and even protraying the "Troubles" as a "sectarian conflict".

[Idle Bandit]

I'd like to see some hard facts to back up this statement, both the labelling of the republicans as a "bad bunch" and accusing the IRSP of being devoid of any substance, pretty bold claims.

The record of modern Irish Republicanism speaks for itself.


But just out of interest and since you think the republican movement is so bloody useless, what is your proposed strategy for a united, and socialist Ireland?

Guess.

[Idle Bandit]

Well Stalin did write the classic work on the national question mo chara...;).

Oh please...

[Palingenisis]

The record of modern Irish Republicanism speaks for itself.

I dont think you have an idea why people were so eager to believe the lies of the Provisional Sinn Fein leadership in the 1990s. Please though get into your head Provisional Sinn Fein are not Republican.

[Idle Bandit]

I dont think you have an idea why people were so eager to believe the lies of the Provisional Sinn Fein leadership in the 1990s.

I don't think you have any idea about what I may or may not know.


Please though get into your head Provisional Sinn Fein are not Republican.

Of course they are. So are Fianna Fáil.

[Palingenisis]

IOf course they are. So are Fianna Fáil.

Huh?

If Fianna Fail are Republican Tony Blair is a Communist.

Dev hung a member of a family in the 1940s...And he wasnt the only Republican murdered by Fianna Fail.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The record of modern Irish Republicanism speaks for itself.

How so? Your one-liners are getting a little old and if I am to take you seriously I would really like to see some kind of scientific debate from you.


Guess.

No I won't guess, I asked a question, the very least you could do is actually reply without acting like a spoilt kid. What should be the current strategy of the Irish republicans? I wouldn't have so much of a problem with your criticisms of the current movement if you actually provided an alternative, but you don't, you want me to guess, apparently.


Says it all really.

How so?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't think you have any idea about what I may or may not know.
I don't think anyone has any idea what you do or don't know, or what your positions are even, I don't think even you know to behonest. You seem so intent on being cryptic, if I didn't know better I would probably suspect you as a closet unionist.

Of course they are. So are Fianna Fáil.

LOL.

[Palingenisis]

Not uncritically, however. Which is the point, and one entirely missed by Stalinists at that.

Ima a Stalino-goth or whatever but I critize all the Republican groupings including Eirigi and the IRSP. That doesnt mean that I dont realise that national liberation is an important task in the creation of a workers' republic. You can disagree with people and know you they are basically on the same side.

[Blake's Baby]

...What should be the current strategy of the Irish republicans? ...

Well, that's the crux really isn't it?

What does 'Irish Republicanism' want? If it's ... a bourgeois republic, they should continue doing what they are doing, dancing between collaborating with the British Government in supporting 'the Peace Process' when they can get something out of it, whoring themselves to American public opinion for Democratic votes in Boston and playing the 'good little Europeans' card in the EU. Sooner or later one of their many horses might come in.

Or, if it's freedom and socialism for the working class in Ireland, they should ditch 'republicanism' as a divisive agenda and start trying to build bridges to the working class in Britain and on the other side of the 'sectarian divide'.

If this was about 'what tactic for Unionism?' I'd be posting pretty much the same thing.

No War but the Class War.

Destroy all Nations.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Or, if it's freedom and socialism for the working class in Ireland, they should ditch 'republicanism' as a divisive agenda and start trying to build bridges to the working class in Britain and on the other side of the 'sectarian divide'.

But there can be no freedom or socialism for Ireland without breaking free from the chains of British imperialism. Are you saying that Irish people should accept their fate as a colony and just try to push for a fairer economic and political system? Or am I missing something? Last time I checked, all genuine socialists are anti-imperialists, there can be no socialism in Ireland under imperialist rule.

[Palingenisis]

Well, that's the crux really isn't it?

What does 'Irish Republicanism' want? If it's ... a bourgeois republic, they should continue doing what they are doing, dancing between collaborating with the British Government in supporting 'the Peace Process' when they can get something out of it, whoring themselves to American public opinion for Democratic votes in Boston and playing the 'good little Europeans' card in the EU. Sooner or later one of their many horses might come in.

Or, if it's freedom and socialism for the working class in Ireland, they should ditch 'republicanism' as a divisive agenda and start trying to build bridges to the working class in Britain and on the other side of the 'sectarian divide'.

If this was about 'what tactic for Unionism?' I'd be posting pretty much the same thing.

No War but the Class War.

Destroy all Nations.

Jump in with ready made slogans knowing nothing about the situation on the ground why dont you?

Motionless is English, No Parasan has lived all his life in England and is involved in working class struggles there and I think unfotunately for me I know a little more about the "sectarian" divide than you do (and maybe its an actual cause of some emotional pain?).

Fools step in where angels fear to thread...

[Palingenisis]

Oh and the vast majiority of Irish Republicans want a workers and small farmers' Republic...

[Blake's Baby]

Jump in with ready made slogans knowing nothing about the situation on the ground why dont you?

Motionless is English, No Parasan has lived all his life in England and is involved in working class struggles there and I think unfotunately for me I know a little more about the "sectarian" divide than you do (and maybe its an actual cause of some emotional pain?).

Fools step in where angels fear to thread...

Being neither a fool nor an angel I can go where I like. You know fuck all about me or my family so don't come that 'authentic paddy' shit with me. I have family on both sides of the border and both sides of the religious/political divide too, so you're busted for talking shit.

I really don't care about your 'emotional pain', I care about the prospects for socialism - not 'in Ireland' because that's just a crock of Stalinist horse-piss but throughout the world. Ireland will only be 'free' when capitalism is destroyed by the revolution of the united working class. That means Irish and British workers together not some little green ghetto. If you can't see that then you're an enemy of the working class.

[Raightning]

Ultimately, Irish republicanism is a revolutionary leftist cause.

Supporting the right of national self-determination is, of course, commendable generally; but it's more than that. An unified Irish nation will ultimately serve to weaken the barriers of the false national consciousness that grips so many good men and women in the provinces. By working to bring about an Irish republic, we work to remove a major barrier to the unity of the Irish working class.

This isn't even bearing in mind that if you plotted a Venn diagram with Irish republicans and republican socialists it would be pretty close to a circle.

Just my two punts.

[Universal Struggle]

Cornish
Irish
scottish independence will be held to a vote after a socialist revolution in the whole of Britain.

With the North and South of Eire being able to vote on its own future.

As for me i think we should rename the whole landmass of Britain Freeland and have a revolutionary Nation, fuck Borders and walls.

[Andropov]

The record of modern Irish Republicanism speaks for itself.
I would like to hear a little bit more about the IRSP and its failings, I look forward to your informative response.

[Andropov]

I really don't care about your 'emotional pain', I care about the prospects for socialism - not 'in Ireland' because that's just a crock of Stalinist horse-piss but throughout the world.
Actually you will find that Stalin was actually alot more reluctant to support the Republican cause than Lenin.
He was no fan of Republicans to put it mildly and in that way diverged significantly from Lenins political perspective on Ireland.

Ireland will only be 'free' when capitalism is destroyed by the revolution of the united working class.
More hollow sloganeering.

That means Irish and British workers together not some little green ghetto.
I think perhaps you misunderstand the concepts behind National Liberation and the emancipation of the Irish working class.

If you can't see that then you're an enemy of the working class.
Bizarre.

[Blake's Baby]

No, Lenin neer believed that 'socialism in one country' was possible, so a 'socialist Ireland' wasn't part of Lenin's thinking. He assumed a united Ireland would be a setback for British Imperialism, which isn't the same thing at all as believing that 'socialism' is possible in a territory of 7 million people with a predominantly agricultural production base.

Woo-hoo, the revolution of the world working class is 'hollow sloganeering' is it? Great, enlighten us oh Apostle, how exactly are we going to overthrow capitalism without a world revolution? I am, as the virgin said to the Archbishop, agog.

[Palingenisis]

Actually you will find that Stalin was actually alot more reluctant to support the Republican cause than Lenin.
He was no fan of Republicans to put it mildly and in that way diverged significantly from Lenins political perspective on Ireland.

I believe that Sean Russell went over to the USSR and was dissappointed. However Sean Russell was a militarist romantic. There were good reasons for not supporting him. Stalin did though reject the Free State's application to join the United Nations on Republican grounds.

The romantic militarist strain of Irish Republicanism can be worrying at times.

[Palingenisis]

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/ideas/ireland-and-the-world-revolution/

It might be a good idea for people to read the take of Communist Party of Great Britian in 1921 before the discussion continues...

[Andropov]

No, Lenin neer believed that 'socialism in one country' was possible
Link?

so a 'socialist Ireland' wasn't part of Lenin's thinking.
Verify your claim above or that point is irrelevant.

He assumed a united Ireland would be a setback for British Imperialism, which isn't the same thing at all as believing that 'socialism' is possible in a territory of 7 million people with a predominantly agricultural production base.
What are you raveing about?
His political perspective on the Irish question was that a United Independant Ireland would be progressive for the Irish working class just as Marx and Engels concluded.

Woo-hoo, the revolution of the world working class is 'hollow sloganeering' is it?
No, your statement there was hollow sloganeering with absolutely no basis in the material context of a working class persons daily life.

Great, enlighten us oh Apostle, how exactly are we going to overthrow capitalism without a world revolution? I am, as the virgin said to the Archbishop, agog.
I never said that a world Revolution wouldnt overthrow capitalism.
I merely said your above statement is hollow sloganeering which is absolutely irrelevant to a constructive debate.

[No pasarán]

Ok so here's a wee bit of my opinions. For true irish inderpendence, there are 2 main goverments that need to be removed from influnce. The British goverment and the Irish 'Free state' goverment. The Free State has never made any really attempt to liberate the north and instead has indulged the catholic church, the business man and the British goverment. Connolly would have been disgusted to see what he claimed as 'his country' has become and how little the ideals of him and his peers have been followed.

The British goverment allowed the unionists to have sole political control over the north until the 60s and for better or worse was only forced by the troubles to give any section of the republican movement a voice. Unfourtunately it is Sinn Fein who are only too happy to sell some of their core principles down the line in exchange for power who have pushed there way to the front. I am also very worried what the effects of having a new conservitive goverment, with their direct links to unionisim, are gonna be on the situation in Ulster.

But if things are gonna change in the north, we do need the working class to be united "What forces can bring the national question to a successful conclusion? Only the working class can do so." as Thomas Power said. More efforts need to be made to reach out to the unionists and educate them why the union is so worthless, the fact that for over 800 years the British monarchy and goverment has been using them to subdue the irish and has stirred up sectarian divisions. The unionsts have to be shown that they will be treated equaly if they drop their loyalties to the crown and instead become part of the struggle to free the people of their land. And the people of the free state have to cast off the capitalist and religious chains that their goverment uses to manipulate them. Anyways Seamus Costello sums up my basic views pretty well bellow

"Our ultimate goal is to end imperialist rule in Ireland, and establish a 32 county democratic socialist republic with the working class in control of the means of production, distribution and exchange."

Ireland today, tommorow the world.

[Proletarian Ultra]

If by that you mean a progressive form of nationalism then I entirely disagree, and I think the tragic histories of the national liberation struggles of the past century bear out this fact.

Ahahaha. Stupid dark people. Enjoy your independence, Africa. Next time wise up and listen to the white Trotskyists.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Or, if it's freedom and socialism for the working class in Ireland, they should ditch 'republicanism' as a divisive agenda.

I know, right?

I mean...pissing on the grave of every Great Irish Leader(tm) from Collins to Dev by dismantling the Free State to establish a 'real' Republic...that's some divisive shit right there. Not to mention kicking the Church in the crotch by shipping a bunch of unwashed Proddies into the polity and writing secularism in the constitution. I have several maiden aunts in Wexford I believe would take up Armalite over that one.

Probably better just to move on. I don't think the nationalist population is ready for it.

[Hoggy_RS]

I really don't care about your 'emotional pain', I care about the prospects for socialism - not 'in Ireland' because that's just a crock of Stalinist horse-piss but throughout the world. Ireland will only be 'free' when capitalism is destroyed by the revolution of the united working class. That means Irish and British workers together not some little green ghetto. If you can't see that then you're an enemy of the working class.

I agree. How dare irish workers fight against capitalism and imperialism. They should support the Union until british workers are ready to rise up with them.:rolleyes:


Cornish
Irish
scottish independence will be held to a vote after a socialist revolution in the whole of Britain.

With the North and South of Eire being able to vote on its own future.

As for me i think we should rename the whole landmass of Britain Freeland and have a revolutionary Nation, fuck Borders and walls.

So there will be a chance that ireland, scotland etc could stay under direct rule from engand in a socialist britain? Fuck that, i've no interest in a left wing imperialist empire.

[Hoggy_RS]

No, Lenin neer believed that 'socialism in one country' was possible, so a 'socialist Ireland' wasn't part of Lenin's thinking. He assumed a united Ireland would be a setback for British Imperialism, which isn't the same thing at all as believing that 'socialism' is possible in a territory of 7 million people with a predominantly agricultural production base.

Woo-hoo, the revolution of the world working class is 'hollow sloganeering' is it? Great, enlighten us oh Apostle, how exactly are we going to overthrow capitalism without a world revolution? I am, as the virgin said to the Archbishop, agog.

Lenin praticed socialism in one country by trying to build up socialism in the USSR while Trotsky and co tried to get him to intervene in Europe.

[Idle Bandit]

Lenin praticed socialism in one country by trying to build up socialism in the USSR while Trotsky and co tried to get him to intervene in Europe.

Yeah, and Fidel Castro is a communist.

[Idle Bandit]

Ahahaha. Stupid dark people. Enjoy your independence, Africa. Next time wise up and listen to the white Trotskyists.

When's the next shuttle leaving for orbit?

[Blake's Baby]

I agree. How dare irish workers fight against capitalism and imperialism. They should support the Union until british workers are ready to rise up with them.:rolleyes:

Irish workers should fight imperialism and capitalism, so should British workers. Fighting for a united Irish republic means swapping British exploitation for Irish exploitation. How is that a step forward?




So there will be a chance that ireland, scotland etc could stay under direct rule from engand in a socialist britain? Fuck that, i've no interest in a left wing imperialist empire.

What the fuck is a 'socialist Britain'? Yet again, Stalinist national-socialist nonsense. Britain (and the Republic) will be destroyed by the revolution, or the revolution will have failed.

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin praticed socialism in one country by trying to build up socialism in the USSR while Trotsky and co tried to get him to intervene in Europe.

Oh, epic fail. Lenin believed in world revolution, his whole strategy was based on the revolution coming in Germany; that's what the whole 'weakest link in the capitalist chain' stuff was about. Lenin never advanced the idea that socialism could be constructed in a Russia isolated in a capitalist world.

[Idle Bandit]

This is a good organization for your types of 'Marxists':

So for suggesting that world revolution is the answer I'm a fascist and a racist, as that other headbanger of a Stalinist suggested, is that it? I realise you all have this superiority complex in relation to real Marxists and the rest of the Left where you think a sort of 'man of the people' swagger and macho cheer leading for any idiot with a gun is an effective smoke screen for your disgusting anti-working class politics, but trust me, it really isn't.

[Idle Bandit]

I would like to hear a little bit more about the IRSP and its failings, I look forward to your informative response.

And I shall give you one in the coming weeks when I have more time.

[Spawn of Stalin]

So,Idle Bandit, we still haven't heard your proposed strategy for a united Irish free state.

[No pasarán]

Can people try to source and quote their arguments a bit more, all we are seeing is opinion after opinion. And please try not to just stoop to the level of just insulting each other.

[Hoggy_RS]

Irish workers should fight imperialism and capitalism, so should British workers. Fighting for a united Irish republic means swapping British exploitation for Irish exploitation. How is that a step forward?
How does fighting for a united workers republic swap British exploitation for Irish exploitation? No republican socialist group supports swapping one capitalist govt for another in any way. Maybe you should read some James Connolly to get an idea of what republicans believe, since your so pitifully uneducated on the subject.



What the fuck is a 'socialist Britain'? Yet again, Stalinist national-socialist nonsense. Britain (and the Republic) will be destroyed by the revolution, or the revolution will have failed.
The quoted poster referred to revolution in Britain, hence a socialist britain where people had to vote on whether or not to remain the union. Read the post i quoted. I'm not a stalinist nor am i a national-socialist. You are just using typical bullshit buzzwords to discredit me as your argument is idiotic.



Oh, epic fail. Lenin believed in world revolution, his whole strategy was based on the revolution coming in Germany; that's what the whole 'weakest link in the capitalist chain' stuff was about. Lenin never advanced the idea that socialism could be constructed in a Russia isolated in a capitalist world.
Lenin believed that socialism must be built up in the USSR before the Soviet Union could spread the revolution across Europe. If socialism failed in the USSR, it would ultimately fail to spread globally.

[No pasarán]

Irish workers should fight imperialism and capitalism, so should British workers. Fighting for a united Irish republic means swapping British exploitation for Irish exploitation. How is that a step forward?


Surely the point of true Irish Liberation is to liberate themselves from both current goverments and replacing in with a socialist system of goverment. Connolly predicted what actually happened.

"After Ireland is free, says the patriot who won't touch Socialism, we will protect all classes, and if you won't pay your rent you will be evicted same as now. But the evicting party, under command of the sheriff, will wear green uniforms and the Harp without the Crown, and the warrant turning you out on the roadside will be stamped with the arms of the Irish Republic "

Which is why the current Irish goverment needs to be replaced by a socialist republic, such as Conolly and his peers intended. World wide socialist revolution is a great ideal, but its unlikely to happen with any great speed. Gaining an Irish Socialist Republic first is an easier step.

[Blake's Baby]

...

The quoted poster referred to revolution in Britain, hence a socialist britain where people had to vote on whether or not to remain the union. Read the post i quoted. I'm not a stalinist nor am i a national-socialist. You are just using typical bullshit buzzwords to discredit me as your argument is idiotic.

...

I apologise then for attributing the ridiculous conception of a 'socialist Britain' to you. You're right, you quoted it rather than advancing it. You have advanced absolutely no positions whatsoever, except to attack me and Universal Struggle for very different reasons, to recommend that I read James Connolly, and to claim that Lenin was a Stalinist. I recommend you read some Lenin, personally, you might be quite surprised at to what he advocates, and then you could read some Rosa Luxemburg and you might learn something.

[Blake's Baby]

Surely the point of true Irish Liberation is to liberate themselves from both current goverments and replacing in with a socialist system of goverment. Connolly predicted what actually happened.

"After Ireland is free, says the patriot who won't touch Socialism, we will protect all classes, and if you won't pay your rent you will be evicted same as now. But the evicting party, under command of the sheriff, will wear green uniforms and the Harp without the Crown, and the warrant turning you out on the roadside will be stamped with the arms of the Irish Republic "

Which is why the current Irish goverment needs to be replaced by a socialist republic, such as Conolly and his peers intended. World wide socialist revolution is a great ideal, but its unlikely to happen with any great speed. Gaining an Irish Socialist Republic first is an easier step.


But there is no 'national liberation'. An 'Irish Socialist Republic' is a nonsense, and it's not 'easier'. World revolution is not an 'ideal' it's a burning necessity. What 'socialist republicanism' does is replace the necessity of world revolution with the (already failed) tactic of national revolution in the hope that it will somehow work in the end. Honestly, it won't. Without a united working class attack on the British and Irish states, and the concerted efforts of the world working class against all their bourgeoisies, there will be no revolution and the Irish working class will remain unfree.

[Crux]

Lenin believed that socialism must be built up in the USSR before the Soviet Union could spread the revolution across Europe. If socialism failed in the USSR, it would ultimately fail to spread globally.
Eh, no. Do you want to get into a quote war on that, or just take my word, especially considering Lenin's attitude to the Hungarian, German, Finnish and pretty much the rest of Europe uprisings. In fact he said quite explicitly that the revolution in russia was just the start of the world revolution, and that for socialism to be brought forward there would at least have to be revolutions in western europe as well.

And here we see one of the obvious shortcomings of republican socialism not so often attacked, the helpless stageism, same old mistakes, new country. And I do wonder why some republicans believe any socialist project involving english worker's (welsh and scottish worker's too I suppose but there seems to be a particular focus on england) rising up would be an Empire? Nationalism perhaps?

[No pasarán]

But there is no 'national liberation'. An 'Irish Socialist Republic' is a nonsense, and it's not 'easier'. World revolution is not an 'ideal' it's a burning necessity. What 'socialist republicanism' does is replace the necessity of world revolution with the (already failed) tactic of national revolution in the hope that it will somehow work in the end. Honestly, it won't. Without a united working class attack on the British and Irish states, and the concerted efforts of the world working class against all their bourgeoisies, there will be no revolution and the Irish working class will remain unfree.

"We are out for Ireland for the Irish. But who are the Irish? Not the rack-renting, slum-owning landlord; not the sweating, profit-grinding capitalist; not the sleek and oily lawyer; not the prostitute pressman - the hired liars of the enemy. Not these are the Irish upon whom the future depends. Not these, but the Irish working class, the only secure foundation upon which a free nation can be reared."

And

"Under Socialism, States, territories, or provinces will exist only as geographical expressions, and have no existence as sources of governmental power, though they may be seats of administrative bodies..."

-both, James Connolly.

I'm not suggesting that national revolution is the end product, but a step in the right direction. I am not dismissing the concept of World revolution, just stating that it needs to start somewhere. Ireland has a very low population compared to many other nations, but the revolutionary politics of ireland have tended to have a influence on some of its emigrants and the descendents of those who left. If Ireland can be shown to become a positive role model, then hopefully the world will follow. Conolly, Larkin, White and so on were keen to see the rising of the working class as a whole, not just in Eire.

Of course, in the long term a world wide change is needed.

[Paul Cockshott]

under capitalism there can be no 32 county free state, and the only way to achieve socialism in Ireland is via independence. .
This smacks of national socialism. It is urealistic in today's world to see a country of at most 5 millions or so as being a basis for socialism.
Whilst it may be understandable that the KKE are following a purely national strategy in Greece, given that they are a strong communist party and that there is nationwide financial crisis, this sort of strategy is doubtful in the long run even in Greece. In Ireland it is complete fantasy.

Nowadays it is only possible to establish a modern socialist planned economy on a continental scale, which means that in Europe, socialist strategy has to be tied to the establishment of a democratic socialist European republic, not petty national states. Only a large multinational socialist state would be in a position to economically confront multi-national capital.

[Proletarian Ultra]

This smacks of national socialism. It is urealistic in today's world to see a country of at most 5 millions or so as being a basis for socialism.
Whilst it may be understandable that the KKE are following a purely national strategy in Greece, given that they are a strong communist party and that there is nationwide financial crisis, this sort of strategy is doubtful in the long run even in Greece. In Ireland it is complete fantasy.

Nowadays it is only possible to establish a modern socialist planned economy on a continental scale, which means that in Europe, socialist strategy has to be tied to the establishment of a democratic socialist European republic, not petty national states. Only a large multinational socialist state would be in a position to economically confront multi-national capital.

This is why Republicans (and for that matter, Welsh, Scottish, Breton Cornish, Galician and Asturian nationalists) strongly support an integrated, democratic Europe.

[No pasarán]

This smacks of national socialism.

That is below the belt, don't accuse someone who is clearly not a fascist of being one. You are smarter than that, so don't resort to cheap insults.

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

I vote Ireland mandates terror attacks on all baracks.

[Universal Struggle]

I agree. How dare irish workers fight against capitalism and imperialism. They should support the Union until british workers are ready to rise up with them.:rolleyes:



So there will be a chance that ireland, scotland etc could stay under direct rule from engand in a socialist britain? Fuck that, i've no interest in a left wing imperialist empire.


No , i meant there could be a vote to keep seperate nations or all make up a new nation, where there is no

England or Ireland or Wales or Scotland Or cornwall.

Some republicans love ireland, why?

Nations are ficticious.

A new nation where all regions have local comitees and come up to voice decisions to a central comitee.

[No pasarán]

I vote Ireland mandates terror attacks on all baracks.

Er.... what? Can you source and explain this a little more??

[Proletarian Ultra]

Could we stop for a moment?

The original poster asked a question about the Irish Republican question. He mentioned nothing about Trotskyism.

Thus far every single anti-Republican poster has been a Trotskyist, and the thread has turned into a predictable pissing-match between 'Trotskyists' and 'Stalinists'.

Question: Did Trotsky at any point take an explicit stand on the Republican question? Are there any Trotskyists who support Republicanism?

Second question: What was the proper Trotskyist position on national liberation struggles in say, Algeria and Angola? Was it "Only a socialist revolution throughout the French/Portuguese territories guarantee self-determination?" Or that swapping out a European bourgeoisie for an African one was a waste of time?

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not a Trotskyist, and I'm anti-Republican. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I'm the most anti-Republican poster on here. I'm not a Stalinist either. The reason I levelled the accusation of 'Stalinism' in the first place is because the conception of an 'Irish Socialist Republic' seems to me to be the application of a Stalinist logic of trying to 'build socialism in one island' which is and always will be impossible. I am if anything a Luxemburgist and oppose 'the right of nations to self-determination' as, under capitalism it means swapping a 'foreign' bourgeoisie for a 'native' bourgeoisie which is no improvement; and under socialism all nations will be destroyed anyway. If there is a socialist revolution, why do we need to retreat to a national revolution? If it is a national revolution, why pretend there is anything socialist in it?

If a 'socialist Ireland' means anything beyond 'the island currently known as Ireland will be part of the World Socialist Community after the World Revolution' (which I would agree with), then it means 'we believe that it is possible to begin building socialism in an isolated country of 7 million people the majority of whom are on the land', which I think is reactionary nonsense, no matter how passionately anyone quotes James Connolly. Fact is, all of the evidence quoted for the defence merely backs up my argument that a new Irish bourgeoisie emerged that then needs to be gotton rid of. Rather than a one-state solution or a two-state solution, I counterpose the no-state solution of active engagement with the world proletarian revolution for the destruction of both The United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

[Hoggy_RS]

I apologise then for attributing the ridiculous conception of a 'socialist Britain' to you. You're right, you quoted it rather than advancing it. You have advanced absolutely no positions whatsoever, except to attack me and Universal Struggle for very different reasons, to recommend that I read James Connolly, and to claim that Lenin was a Stalinist. I recommend you read some Lenin, personally, you might be quite surprised at to what he advocates, and then you could read some Rosa Luxemburg and you might learn something.
My position is that foreign and local capitalism must be opposed and this means opposing the British imperialist empire and it's occupation of the O6C. An end to imperialism and capitalism in Ireland and all over the world. I support the foundation of a 32 country socialist republic in Ireland which would work in solidarity with other socialist nations.

I don't think lenin was a stalinist. I think Stalin was a follower of Lenin but strayed from this line.



Eh, no. Do you want to get into a quote war on that, or just take my word, especially considering Lenin's attitude to the Hungarian, German, Finnish and pretty much the rest of Europe uprisings. In fact he said quite explicitly that the revolution in russia was just the start of the world revolution, and that for socialism to be brought forward there would at least have to be revolutions in western europe as well.

And here we see one of the obvious shortcomings of republican socialism not so often attacked, the helpless stageism, same old mistakes, new country. And I do wonder why some republicans believe any socialist project involving english worker's (welsh and scottish worker's too I suppose but there seems to be a particular focus on england) rising up would be an Empire? Nationalism perhaps?

I was under the impression that Lenin's position was that a world wide revolution could be built through socialists taking power in one capitalist country at a time, that is through a number of revolutions in different countries.

When do republicans claim that a workers revolution across the sea would bring about an empire? If a 'socialist britain', that is an imperialist empire with a left wing attitude, was created it would be right to oppose it.

And here is the shortcomings of the CWI; the belief that all republican socialists are nationalists.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I'm not a Trotskyist

I apologize. I didn't mean to mis-attribute you.


I counterpose the no-state solution of active engagement with the world proletarian revolution for the destruction of both The United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

Well that's a coherent position. Thank you for taking the time to respond. What about the rest of you?

[Blake's Baby]

Sorry, replying to Hoggy S here:

What is 'a socialist republic'? What are 'socialist nations'? These are meaningless terms. If the working class is capable of launching a revolution, there will be no 'socialist nations' just socialism. If the working class is not capable of launching a revolution, there will be no 'socialist nations' just capitalist nations. The world working class has no interest in supporting one bourgeois faction against another, one 'nation' against another, so nationalism for the Irish working class is a dead end.

Opposing foreign and local capital means opposing both British and Irish capitalism. If you want the Irish working class to be free your enemy is not the British state per se, it's world capitalism, and your allies are not Irish nationalists, they're workers in Britain. Only the working class in the UK (all of it) can defeat the UK government. Dividing British from Irish workers is not going to bring that about. Conversely, bringing workers together will bring that about.

[Crux]

I was under the impression that Lenin's position was that a world wide revolution could be built through socialists taking power in one capitalist country at a time, that is through a number of revolutions in different countries.
Taking power is not the same as instantly creating socialism. I believe that difference parts of a country, even different cities may rise up sooner than other's that does not mean I believe in creating socialism city by city, or municipality by municipality.


When do republicans claim that a workers revolution across the sea would bring about an empire? If a 'socialist britain', that is an imperialist empire with a left wing attitude, was created it would be right to oppose it.

And here is the shortcomings of the CWI; the belief that all republican socialists are nationalists.Well, it's just that I have seen the position of the CWI misrepresented so many times by republicans it's hard not to see a tendency. I don't believe all republican socialists are nationalists, I do however believe that republicanism itself contains a contradiction in overstating the national question, in many cases relying more on nationalism than socialism although not in all cases, and not really providing a clear path towards socialism. The republican movement was torn by these contradictions from the very beginning and I don't really see any signs of them being overcome.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I am if anything a Luxemburgist and oppose 'the right of nations to self-determination' as, under capitalism it means swapping a 'foreign' bourgeoisie for a 'native' bourgeoisie which is no improvement;

First of all, I would argue that it is a slight improvement...would you have opposed Indian independence on the basis that the British and the British controlled bourgeoisie would merely be replaced by the Indian bourgeoisie? Would you have opposed the anti-apartheid movement based on the fact that the ANC were bourgeois too?

Second, why would the foreign bourgeoisie be replaced by a native bourgeoisie? Why is it so implausible that they would be replaced by worker democracy?

I've read Luxemburg and while I'm not a huge fan I've gotta say she never said anything quite this ridiculous.


and under socialism all nations will be destroyed anyway.

All states will be destroyed...but there is no need to destroy nations, culture, history, language, etc. As far as I am aware no respectable Communist has ever advocated this.


If there is a socialist revolution, why do we need to retreat to a national revolution? If it is a national revolution, why pretend there is anything socialist in it?

There is no need to pretend if it genuinely is socialist.


If a 'socialist Ireland' means anything beyond 'the island currently known as Ireland will be part of the World Socialist Community after the World Revolution' (which I would agree with), then it means 'we believe that it is possible to begin building socialism in an isolated country of 7 million people the majority of whom are on the land', which I think is reactionary nonsense, no matter how passionately anyone quotes James Connolly. Fact is, all of the evidence quoted for the defence merely backs up my argument that a new Irish bourgeoisie emerged that then needs to be gotton rid of. Rather than a one-state solution or a two-state solution, I counterpose the no-state solution of active engagement with the world proletarian revolution for the destruction of both The United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

Have fun waiting for utopia to come, but I'd try to find a hobby while you're at it, watching paint dry is a good way to pass long periods of time, you should try it.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

national liberation =/= Worker's liberation.

That is all that needs to be said of the 'irish question', or other, similar, struggles.

[Coggeh]

My position is that foreign and local capitalism must be opposed and this means opposing the British imperialist empire and it's occupation of the O6C. An end to imperialism and capitalism in Ireland and all over the world. I support the foundation of a 32 country socialist republic in Ireland which would work in solidarity with other socialist nations.

I don't think lenin was a stalinist. I think Stalin was a follower of Lenin but strayed from this line.




I was under the impression that Lenin's position was that a world wide revolution could be built through socialists taking power in one capitalist country at a time, that is through a number of revolutions in different countries.

When do republicans claim that a workers revolution across the sea would bring about an empire? If a 'socialist britain', that is an imperialist empire with a left wing attitude, was created it would be right to oppose it.

And here is the shortcomings of the CWI; the belief that all republican socialists are nationalists.
A socialist imperialist britain ? how do the CWI have shortcomings about this ? obviously we don't support an imperialist britain. we support a socialist federation of England Wales Scotland and Ireland no socialist should oppose such a unity we are not talking about a new socialist UK built on imperialist invasion but working class unity of the isles that would be imperative in defending the revolution and to its overall success.

[Palingenisis]

A socialist imperialist britain ? how do the CWI have shortcomings about this ? obviously we don't support an imperialist britain. we support a socialist federation of England Wales Scotland and Ireland no socialist should oppose such a unity we are not talking about a new socialist UK built on imperialist invasion but working class unity of the isles that would be imperative in defending the revolution and to its overall success.


Are you going to deny that great Russian chauvanism didnt begin to raise up its head even under Stalin?

Sometimes Trots, anarchists and Left-Communists remind me of that Utopian Socialist who believed that under Socialism salt water would turn to Lemonade!

[Coggeh]

Are you going to deny that great Russian chauvanism didnt begin to raise up its head even under Stalin?

Sometimes Trots, anarchists and Left-Communists remind me of that Utopian Socialist who believed that under Socialism salt water would turn to Lemonade!
I didn't mention stalin at all ? I'm not sure what you are trying to point out maybe i missed something from an earlier post?

[Crux]

Are you going to deny that great Russian chauvanism didnt begin to raise up its head even under Stalin?

Sometimes Trots, anarchists and Left-Communists remind me of that Utopian Socialist who believed that under Socialism salt water would turn to Lemonade!
Uhm, no, dude, you pretty much answered the question for me. USSR dominated by russia =/= voluntary socialist federation.

I think I remember something about that Trotsky guy writing something about how to fight bureaucratic degeneration...

[Proletarian Ultra]

we support a socialist federation of England Wales Scotland and Ireland

So which part of the Republican program do you see as an obstacle to such a federation? Would it be:

1. Dismantling the 6-county occupation government? or
2. Dismantling the 26-county sectarian-Catholic statelet? or
3. Establishing a 32 county secular democratic republic?

It would seem to me that each one of those points are in fact prerequisites for a socialist federation of the isles.


no socialist should oppose such a unity we are not talking about a new socialist UK built on imperialist invasion but working class unity of the isles that would be imperative in defending the revolution and to its overall success.

It's doomed to failure if it doesn't also include Normandy, Saxony, Jutland, the Duchy of Hanover, Brittany and India as well.

[Crux]

So which part of the Republican program do you see as an obstacle to such a federation? Would it be:

1. Dismantling the 6-county occupation government? or
2. Dismantling the 26-county sectarian-Catholic statelet? or
3. Establishing a 32 county secular democratic republic?

It would seem to me that each one of those points are in fact prerequisites for a socialist federation of the isles.



It's doomed to failure if it doesn't also include Normandy, Saxony, Jutland, the Duchy of Hanover, Brittany and India as well.
Already answered the first one pretty much so I'll get on to the second one.

We advocate socialism on an international scale. Most usually we talk about a socialist federation of Europe (or north america, south america, africa, central asia etc etc etc). Because that would be a good first step. Oh and yeah, there's a difference between talking about a socialist federation of europe and,say, a socialist sweden or a socialist ireland.

[Palingenisis]

I didn't mention stalin at all ? I'm not sure what you are trying to point out maybe i missed something from an earlier post?

No you didnt...My point was this that even under Socialism English chauvanism isnt going to vanish overnight. In the long or even the medium term I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to your idea but in the short term no. National liberation for Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall first and than we think about them joining up in a Socialist Federation with England after some water has passed the bridge so to speak.

[Crux]

No you didnt...My point was this that even under Socialism English chauvanism isnt going to vanish overnight. In the long or even the medium term I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to your idea but in the short term no. National liberation for Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall first and than we think about them joining up in a Socialist Federation with England after some water has passed the bridge so to speak.
I think national chauvunism by and large can be overcome through common class struggle. After all, who perpetuates chauvinism? The ruling classes. That's not to say that chauvinism in itself shouldn't b fought today as well, but I firmly believe that class struggle, not separation, can achieve that.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Already answered the first one pretty much so I'll get on to the second one.

We advocate socialism on an international scale. Most usually we talk about a socialist federation of Europe (or north america, south america, africa, central asia etc etc etc). Because that would be a good first step. Oh and yeah, there's a difference between talking about a socialist federation of europe and,say, a socialist sweden or a socialist ireland.

Umm...so is it dismantling the 26 county Catholic-sectarian state that you object to? Or the bit about the secular constitution?

[Hoggy_RS]

Well, it's just that I have seen the position of the CWI misrepresented so many times by republicans it's hard not to see a tendency. I don't believe all republican socialists are nationalists, I do however believe that republicanism itself contains a contradiction in overstating the national question, in many cases relying more on nationalism than socialism although not in all cases, and not really providing a clear path towards socialism. The republican movement was torn by these contradictions from the very beginning and I don't really see any signs of them being overcome.
This is indeed the case in some republican groups. However, I do not think it is the case with the IRSM or Eirigi who have been instrumental in trying to bring republicans over to the idea of rejecting bourgeois republicanism and seeing the importance of putting socialism at the forefront of our struggle. However, this does not mean that republican socialists should ignore the imperialist occupation. The British forces are still routinely harrasing political activists and treating POW's in an inhumane manner, not as much has changed as we are led to believe. I think other left groups are foolish to disregard the national question when it is such a vital factor in achieving socialism on the island of Ireland. I would actually agree with the federation of ireland, scotland, wales and england. I don't think our end goals are that different.


Sorry, replying to Hoggy S here:

What is 'a socialist republic'? What are 'socialist nations'? These are meaningless terms. If the working class is capable of launching a revolution, there will be no 'socialist nations' just socialism. If the working class is not capable of launching a revolution, there will be no 'socialist nations' just capitalist nations. The world working class has no interest in supporting one bourgeois faction against another, one 'nation' against another, so nationalism for the Irish working class is a dead end.

Opposing foreign and local capital means opposing both British and Irish capitalism. If you want the Irish working class to be free your enemy is not the British state per se, it's world capitalism, and your allies are not Irish nationalists, they're workers in Britain. Only the working class in the UK (all of it) can defeat the UK government. Dividing British from Irish workers is not going to bring that about. Conversely, bringing workers together will bring that about.
That sounds great but in my opinion is not possible.


A socialist imperialist britain ? how do the CWI have shortcomings about this ? obviously we don't support an imperialist britain. we support a socialist federation of England Wales Scotland and Ireland no socialist should oppose such a unity we are not talking about a new socialist UK built on imperialist invasion but working class unity of the isles that would be imperative in defending the revolution and to its overall success.

I said the CWI shortcoming was claiming groups like republican socialists are all nationalists. I do not oppose the federation idea.

[here for the revolution]

To introduce a more natural than ideological argument, it is my belief that a 32 county Ireland will happen through the simple fact that Catholic/Republican communities in the North are growing at a far faster rate than Protestant/Loyalist communities. Probably simply due to the standpoint of Catholicism rejecting abortion and contraception.
As such, assuming the British government keeps to its word of Northern Ireland having the right to vote themselves out of the United Kingdom and form a 32 county Ireland, it is simply a matter of time.
Assuming the British government does not keep to its word, then certainly a form of struggle would be necessary, yet I do not believe that Westminster would be so keen to fight tooth and nail for the control of Ireland in light of their experience of `The Troubles`.

[Universal Struggle]

Ireland is a natin with its own culture language and traits.

As all the Celtic nations are.

Freedom is the price of peace.

[Hoggy_RS]

To introduce a more natural than ideological argument, it is my belief that a 32 county Ireland will happen through the simple fact that Catholic/Republican communities in the North are growing at a far faster rate than Protestant/Loyalist communities. Probably simply due to the standpoint of Catholicism rejecting abortion and contraception.
As such, assuming the British government keeps to its word of Northern Ireland having the right to vote themselves out of the United Kingdom and form a 32 county Ireland, it is simply a matter of time.
Assuming the British government does not keep to its word, then certainly a form of struggle would be necessary, yet I do not believe that Westminster would be so keen to fight tooth and nail for the control of Ireland in light of their experience of `The Troubles`.

I think that is probably quite a naive view of irish catholics. Contraception is widely used by catholics and I imagine the fundamentalist protestant types are as anti-abortion as their catholic counter-parts!

I agree that its true that soon catholics could possibly out-number protestants but i'm not sure is this a good thing. Any referendum would only create a 32 county free state which is not desirable. Also the idea of voting protestants into a UI seems quite unfair. Ideally all workers of every creed would rise up against the bosses across the 32 counties and destroy capitalism as well as ridding the island of imperialist influence.

[Mindtoaster]

Probably simply due to the standpoint of Catholicism rejecting abortion and contraception.


Just to clairfy, all major political groups in NI, both Catholic and Protestant oppose abortion. Not sure about contraception, so I don't think thats the reason they're growing at a faster rate

[Palingenisis]

Just to clairfy, all major political groups in NI, both Catholic and Protestant oppose abortion. Not sure about contraception, so I don't think thats the reason they're growing at a faster rate

Provisional Sinn Fein dont oppose contraception or divorce, they support gay rights and our silent on the issue of abortion as oppose to opposing it (its an issue that has the potential to rip them apart).

[Proletarian Ultra]

I agree that its true that soon catholics could possibly out-number protestants but i'm not sure is this a good thing. Any referendum would only create a 32 county free state which is not desirable. Also the idea of voting protestants into a UI seems quite unfair. Ideally all workers of every creed would rise up against the bosses across the 32 counties and destroy capitalism as well as ridding the island of imperialist influence.

Thank you for spelling this out. I believe some comrades in this thread are unclear on the difference between Nationalism (annex the 6 counties to the Free State) and Republicanism.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Ideally all workers of every creed would rise up against the bosses across the 32 counties and destroy capitalism as well as ridding the island of imperialist influence...

No, 'ideally' workers everywhere (not just in the 32 counties) would rise up and destroy capitalism. In fact, more than ideally, it is necessary for workers everywhere to rise up and destroy capitalism.



...
That sounds great but in my opinion is not possible...

I'm not sure exactly what you think is 'not possible'. Is it unity between Irish and British workers that is not possible? Is it revolution that is not possible?

Either way, if you don't believe in working class unity, or you don't believe in revolution, you still pose everything as being soluble in the context of a single island. Wake up. There are no islands of socialism. Only the world revolution will be able to free the working class of Ireland.

[No pasarán]

I think that is probably quite a naive view of irish catholics. Contraception is widely used by catholics and I imagine the fundamentalist protestant types are as anti-abortion as their catholic counter-parts!

I agree that its true that soon catholics could possibly out-number protestants but i'm not sure is this a good thing. Any referendum would only create a 32 county free state which is not desirable. Also the idea of voting protestants into a UI seems quite unfair. Ideally all workers of every creed would rise up against the bosses across the 32 counties and destroy capitalism as well as ridding the island of imperialist influence.

I'm just quoting you cos I agree with you here mo chara.

A lot of the 'catholic' community aren't as devout as they once were, I think its the same in the 'protestant' community. It is disgusting that the major political parties are not pro-choice though. I've known Ulster women who have been rape victims who had to come to the UK to get an abortion. What fucking century are we living in. I hate religon so much...

The free state is a prime example of why we don't want any religon to dominate. The churches 'special place' is still in the constitution. Thats one of the first things that needs to be removed to change ireland. As I've stated before we want neither the capitalist system or the church to have a say in how ireland is run. We need to make sure the unionists reject their church as well as the british goverment. The very fact that one of the most out spokenly sectarian biggoted priests, with a phoney 'doctrate' ('Dr' Ian Paisley) was elected as first minster of 'northern ireland' shows just how much is wrong with the system as does the fact that the likes of Adams and McGuinness are so willing to give up so many of their original beliefs to become part of the capitalist, immperialist government of their region. The people of both the republican and unionist communities need to realise their current leaders and goverment are doing them no favours. Both north and south of Ireland need to change, capitalism and church need to be rejected and a true, fair, system needs to be put in place. No more catholic bias in the south, no more orange order in the north. Remove the church and people might see just how much they have in common despite the history.



Nowadays it is only possible to establish a modern socialist planned economy on a continental scale, which means that in Europe, socialist strategy has to be tied to the establishment of a democratic socialist European republic, not petty national states. Only a large multinational socialist state would be in a position to economically confront multi-national capital.

I do not want to see a European Socialst Union, but eventualy a worldwide one where people are treated equaly and fairly. Otherwise Europe will continue to play divide and conquer with the USA, Russia and China. In my eyes at least initaly, revolution has to happen nation by nation and people should be allowed to preserve the positives of their culture.

[Blake's Baby]

... In my eyes at least initaly, revolution has to happen nation by nation and people should be allowed to preserve the positives of their culture.

OK, but over what sort of time-frame? I agree that the revolution will not occur absolutely simultaneously in every country.

To put it another way, Greece has started the party, the rest of us are going to be playing catch-up (and we will I hope overtake Greece on the way).

But is it worth fighting for the notion of 'a socialist republic of Ireland' when that political formation will last, what, a year? 18 months? 3 months? Why not fight for 'the end of capitalist domination, war and the exploitation of the environment' instead?

It seems to me that any potential gain you might claim from a united socialist Ireland will be heavily outweighed by the nationalist division that will sow in both the Irish and British working class. If we look at Poland and Finland in 1917, Lenin was fundamentally wrong to argue self-determination. The first thing that happened was the Communists were drowned by the nationalists, who then attacked the Soviet Republic.

It seems to me that 'Irish Republican Socialism' is in exactly the same boat as the Pilsudski's Polish Socialist Party before WWI, who supported Poland breaking away from Russia, as opposed to theSDKPiL of Rosa Luxemburg. It isn't a recipe for revolution, it's a recipe for division in the working class.

[Palingenisis]

It seems to me that 'Irish Republican Socialism' is in exactly the same boat as the Pilsudski's Polish Socialist Party before WWI, who supported Poland breaking away from Russia, as opposed to theSDKPiL of Rosa Luxemburg. It isn't a recipe for revolution, it's a recipe for division in the working class.

Maybe Imperialism is also?

The fact is that English comrades are agreeing with us.

[Paul Cockshott]

That is below the belt, don't accuse someone who is clearly not a fascist of being one. You are smarter than that, so don't resort to cheap insults.
Clearly the guy is not a conscious fascist. But if you look at some of these celtic
nationalist groups for example the srsp, they display many of the
cultural traits of early national socialism without themselves being aware of it.
For fascination with gothic script read fascination with celtic script, for the Hacken Kreuz the Crinan Knot.

The past history of linkage between celtic nationalism and national socialism is an open secret
from Hugh McDairmids early call for Fascism in Scotland, collaboration of the IRA like many other
European nationalist groups with the national socialist regime in Germany, http://www.victims.org.uk/nazi.html,
Griffiths support for the anti-semitic pogrom in Limerick etc.

This of course was all in the distant past, but these republican groups are all nationalist first and
socialist a very poor second. They emphasise national interest over class interest.
Today the need is for a Europe wide socialist party to contest political issues at the Union
level on the side of the working classes. Celtic nationalist groupings, like other nationalist parties
are a diversion from this task.

[No pasarán]

Clearly the guy is not a conscious fascist. But if you look at some of these celtic
nationalist groups for example the srsp, they display many of the
cultural traits of
early national socialism without themselves be

We (as in the republican socialists posting here) are not celtic nationalists or irish republican romanticists. But I don't think the poster Motionless even considers themselves irish, just supports the idea that the irish have the right to free themselves from British rule.

National socialism had nothing to do with real socialism and its beliefs on its 'aryan' culture were bits of history just stuck together to say what they want? Anyone with half an idea on real european history can pull their beliefs apart. It has no real basis in the history of the norse or germanic peoples and it definately doesn't acknowledge that a lot of the germanic races came from the east. Nor does it acknowlege than the original term aryan was about a people who definately weren't white.

But there was some sort of gaelic culture in the nw of europe, although the idea of 'the celtic peoples' is a later invention. I don't understand why I shouldn't continue to study and enjoy gaelic culture as long as I'm not biggoted or suppremist about it? It shouldn't be viewed as being better than anyone elses culture, but should it just be discarded? But we are getting off topic here. My original post was asking for people views on the question of irish self determination, not gaelic culture.

[Palingenisis]

Clearly the guy is not a conscious fascist. But if you look at some of these celtic
nationalist groups for example the srsp, they display many of the
cultural traits of
early national socialism without themselves be

Your comment about the Scottish Republican Socialist Party is well out of order. Their opposition to fascism, the Scottish Defense League and sectarianism is well known.

[Paul Cockshott]

I do not want to see a European Socialst Union, but eventualy a worldwide one where people are treated equaly and fairly. Otherwise Europe will continue to play divide and conquer with the USA, Russia and China. In my eyes at least initaly, revolution has to happen nation by nation and people should be allowed to preserve the positives of their culture.


Europe now is in a similar position to Germany in the late 1860s - moving uncertainly towards union under the leadership of the propertied classes. The response of the
European workers movement to this development should be like that of the German workers then -- not to call for the autonomy of the Bavaria, Hanover etc, but to fight
for democracy at the Federation level.

This is not to say that in a crisis such as that currently occuring in Greece, it might not be possible for socialism to come to power in one state of the Union, but this would be an inherently unstable situation.

[Paul Cockshott]

Your comment about the Scottish Republican Socialist Party is well out of order. Their opposition to fascism, the Scottish Defense League and sectarianism is well known.

I did not say they were conscious fascists, and over time people can change, but I recall public meetings at which they agitated against English immigrants to Scotland.

[Paul Cockshott]

National socialism had nothing to do with real socialism
Obviously you are quite right there



and its beliefs on its 'aryan' culture were bits of history just stuck together to say what they want? Anyone with half an idea on real european history can pull their beliefs apart. It has no real basis in the history of the norse or germanic peoples and it definately doesn't acknowledge that a lot of the germanic races came from the east. Nor does it acknowlege than the original term aryan was about a people who definately weren't white.
I think you are probably wrong there. The whole aryan race myth built on the prior work of German linguists who spread the idea that the indo-european languages stemmed from a conquering race originating in the Caucasus region and spreading west and east from there. The use of the term Caucasian for white people in the USA is a relic of this Aryan race myth.

So the Nazis were actually quite interested in tracing the tracks of this mythical race from that region.

The whole racial theory of the origins of the Indo European languages has now been displaced by Renfrew;s theory that they spread with the spread of agriculture from Anatolia, and that what spread was a mode of production which carried with it a culture and a vocabulary.

[No pasarán]

Clearly the guy is not a conscious fascist. But if you look at some of these celtic
nationalist groups for example the srsp, they display many of the
cultural traits of early national socialism without themselves being aware of it.
For fascination with gothic script read fascination with celtic script, for the Hacken Kreuz the Crinan Knot.

The past history of linkage between celtic nationalism and national socialism is an open secret
from Hugh McDairmids early call for Fascism in Scotland, collaboration of the IRA like many other
European nationalist groups with the national socialist regime in Germany, http://www.victims.org.uk/nazi.html,
Griffiths support for the anti-semitic pogrom in Limerick etc.

This of course was all in the distant past, but these republican groups are all nationalist first and
socialist a very poor second. They emphasise national interest over class interest.
Today the need is for a Europe wide socialist party to contest political issues at the Union
level on the side of the working classes. Celtic nationalist groupings, like other nationalist parties
are a diversion from this task.

Ok since we have both edited our posts unseen to the other hopefully I can get this in before I have to start another reply...

Can you source what I highlighted?

As for that website.. I'm well aware of some of the problems with irish nationalisim and the murky history of some members of the IRA. I am well aware the current irish state is a sham. But the IRSP is not a nationalist party, neither is Éirigi. These are the two most realistic patries that follow the legacy of the likes of Connolly, Larkin, White, Costtello, Power as well as Marx and to a lesser extent Lenin, etc.. They are not oppurtunists like Sinn Fein. And they are primarly about Socialism, just with an intial irish focus.

I am yet to find a realistic european wide socialist party, that really understands the issues in place in Ireland. And what you seem to be saying is 'no we will only work we you under these conditions'. Of course a change needs to take place across africa, asia, america, europe, oceania. But what are the irish people supposed to do, wait for this party to get into power?

[Paul Cockshott]

Ok since we have both edited our posts unseen to the other hopefully I can get this in before I have to start another reply...

Can you source what I highlighted?

Look here http://theses.gla.ac.uk/607/





I am yet to find a realistic european wide socialist party, that really understands the issues in place in Ireland. And what you seem to be saying is 'no we will only work we you under these conditions'. Of course a change needs to take place across africa, asia, america, europe, oceania. But what are the irish people supposed to do, wait for this party to get into power?

You are right that there is no such unified socialist party in Europe today, which is one reason why neo-liberal politics are dominant in the EU.

But Ireland is in the Euro, and the immediate economic problems that its people face can not be confronted outside of the context of the neo-liberal economic and monetary policies being followed in the Union and by the ECB.

http://puk.de/de/component/fireboard/?func=view&id=164&catid=11

http://www.puk.de/de/nhp/puk-downloads/socialism-xxi-english/32-transition-to-21st-century-socialism-in-the-european-union.html

[No pasarán]

Oh and Willie Frazer who runs FAIR/victims.org.uk, the website you used as a source has some very suspect views and opinions. He is very quick to condem republicans, but not so quickly loyalists. He is a member of the Orange Order and Apprentice Boys and he is a Nationalist.

I can source my views on him very heavily if you want, but that is not what this debate is about.

Hugh MacDiarmid was far from perfect I'll admit, his ideas definately had a tendacy to jump from what ever tendancy suited his thoughts best at the time. I'm not a fan of his though and to be honest I don't think he is fit to compare to likes of Connolly or Costello or any of the others I have frequently quoted as my personal influnces who were not nationalists, but trying to encourage the people of their country to rise up and over throw immperealisim.

Not one of the Republican Socialists or those who support us is suggesting that a blind eye or a revionisit view should be taken of Irish history by the way.

[Paul Cockshott]

Oh and Willie Frazer who runs FAIR/victims.org.uk, the website you used as a source has some very suspect views and opinions. He is very quick to condem republicans, but not so quickly loyalists. He is a member of the Orange Order and Apprentice Boys and he is a Nationalist.

I can source my views on him very heavily if you want, but that is not what this debate is about.

Not one of the Irish or those who support us is suggesting that a blind eye or a revionisit view should be taken of Irish history by the way.


That does not surprise me, the different nationalist groups will be very ready to dig the dirt on one another. But you can get similar information from Wikipedia, though of course that too is something that is struggled over.

[No pasarán]

That does not surprise me, the different nationalist groups will be very ready to dig the dirt on one another. But you can get similar information from Wikipedia, though of course that too is something that is struggled over.

You might wanna reread my post since I just edited it again. As for Wikipedia, well thats a source I would never really trust though some of its footnotes can be relevant.

As I said the Republican Socialists and those who are siding with them are not blind to the history of Ireland, but you seem to be ignoring the fact I keep posting that. Irish Republicanisim does have a murky history, same as almost any kind of socialism. Its name has been used in vain and those who created some of the most realistic theories on the future of ireland have been misquoted for aims they would have never supported. Jack White is a prime example of someone who despite their attempts and achivements was pushed aside by religous sectarians inside the republican movement, Seamus Costello was killed because his former party saw him as a political threat.

[Proletarian Ultra]

The past history of linkage between celtic nationalism and national socialism is an open secret
from Hugh McDairmids early call for Fascism in Scotland, collaboration of the IRA like many other
European nationalist groups with the national socialist regime in Germany, http://www.victims.org.uk/nazi.html,
Griffiths support for the anti-semitic pogrom in Limerick etc.

Yes. And Saunders Lewis in Wales was a Mussolini supporter as well. Breton nationalists collaborated with the Nazi occupation. It's true: Celtic nationalism has a checkered past.

Irish Republicanism is a different creature, though. The IRA and Republican Congress sent volunteers to the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War. The nationalist Blueshirts, on the other hand, sent volunteers for Franco.

[Crux]

Umm...so is it dismantling the 26 county Catholic-sectarian state that you object to? Or the bit about the secular constitution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Although a choice between options I don't necessarily disagree with. How about debating what I am actually criticizing instead? I am sorry if I have been a bit unspecific, but again, I think republican socialism suffers from the same shortcomings as all stageist theories, this can be seen in the IRSP and Eigeri to some extent, but I think if you're going to better understand what I am getting at let's take the example of Sinn Fein and it's splits. I'll stick to recent (1960 and onwards) history here although there is certainly many good examples further in the past as well. Consider the fate of the Worker's Party, which is classical for organizations guidied by the two-stage theory, of merging into social democracy. Consider the fate of Sinne Fein, in effect becoming both nationalists and social democrats, if even that, with RSF (and the CIRA), from what I can discern at least seeming to be the conservative remnant of that party, with not much of a view of socialism either. Now again, this problem isn't something that only republicanism suffers, looking at other national liberation organizations, coming from an ostensibly socialist past, around the world. Many, if not all, has gone to the right and found themselves in a dead end. Now the dead end of say ETA and the dead end of ANC might take different forms but are at the bottom the symptom of the same problem. I could get into along expose here but it's late and I'll save that for later post, the dead end however is the lack of the perspective of permanent revolution and the perspective on internationalism that comes with it.

[Paul Cockshott]

You might wanna reread my post since I just edited it again. As for Wikipedia, well thats a source I would never really trust though some of its footnotes can be relevant.

As I said the Republican Socialists and those who are siding with them are not blind to the history of Ireland, but you seem to be ignoring the fact I keep posting that. Irish Republicanisim does have a murky history, same as almost any kind of socialism. Its name has been used in vain and those who created some of the most realistic theories on the future of ireland have been misquoted for aims they would have never supported. Jack White is a prime example of someone who despite their attempts and achivements was pushed aside by religous sectarians inside the republican movement, Seamus Costello was killed because his former party saw him as a political threat.

I accept your point about the broad spectrum of people who have been involved in the movement.

[here for the revolution]

I think that is probably quite a naive view of irish catholics. Contraception is widely used by catholics and I imagine the fundamentalist protestant types are as anti-abortion as their catholic counter-parts!

I agree that its true that soon catholics could possibly out-number protestants but i'm not sure is this a good thing. Any referendum would only create a 32 county free state which is not desirable. Also the idea of voting protestants into a UI seems quite unfair. Ideally all workers of every creed would rise up against the bosses across the 32 counties and destroy capitalism as well as ridding the island of imperialist influence.

Oh yes of course, I realise that I was just being very simplistic yesterday as my brain couldn't cope :P. But I think we're agreed that Catholics are growing at a faster rate than Protestants? In my opinion that's good, because then they can have a united Ireland. I agree that the replacement of capitalism would be a good aim (obviously) however I feel that the ideological question will remain sidelined until the status of the nation and its borders are settled.
I do agree with James Connolly's opinion that a united Ireland would `all be in vain` if you did not also destroy capitalism and therefore the last vestiges of Britain's influence over the island, yet I do feel it will be a later struggle.

[Paul Cockshott]

Your comment about the Scottish Republican Socialist Party is well out of order. Their opposition to fascism, the Scottish Defense League and sectarianism is well known.
I conceed they may have changed over the years, I remember what they were like in the 1980s when we in the then WPS clashed with them at times.

[Paul Cockshott]

Oh yes of course, I realise that I was just being very simplistic yesterday as my brain couldn't cope :P. But I think we're agreed that Catholics are growing at a faster rate than Protestants? In my opinion that's good, because then they can have a united Ireland. I agree that the replacement of capitalism would be a good aim (obviously) however I feel that the ideological question will remain sidelined until the status of the nation and its borders are settled.
I do agree with James Connolly's opinion that a united Ireland would `all be in vain` if you did not also destroy capitalism and therefore the last vestiges of Britain's influence over the island, yet I do feel it will be a later struggle.
You end up saying one religion is good and the other bad which is an odd position for atheistic socialism.

[Palingenisis]

I conceed they may have changed over the years, I remember what they were like in the 1980s when we in the then WPS clashed with them at times.

The WPS? What is that?

[Paul Cockshott]

Workers Party of Scotland, a Maoist/Macleanist party founded 1966, continued until early 90s, very active in organising the anti-poll tax movement.

[Palingenisis]

Workers Party of Scotland, a Maoist/Macleanist party founded 1966, continued until early 90s, very active in organising the anti-poll tax movement.

So I take it they favoured independence?

If there was a Maoist/Macleanist party already in existence why was the SRSP formed...What were the key differences between them?

(Sorry for going off topic).

[Paul Cockshott]

I dont know why the SRSP formed, perhaps it was while key WPS people were in jail.

[Palingenisis]

I dont know why the SRSP formed, perhaps it was while key WPS people were in jail.

What were the main differences between them?

[Paul Cockshott]

At least in the 80s the WPS was more marxist and less nationalist though it did favour a Socialist Scotland joining the Warsaw Pact. With China state capitalist by then we were more sympathetic to the USSR.

[Palingenisis]

So you didnt hold the theory that capitalism was restored in the USSR after Stalin's death? I know the Scottish Seperatist Group had links with the Russian Maoist Party which regards the USSR as having become social-fascist under Krushev (sorry about spelling) but I also have heard that the SSG are basically a state front.

[Paul Cockshott]

What were the main differences between them?

My memory of it was that the SRSP were mainly concerned with marches with republican bands and going to things like Bannockburn commemorations whereas we spent our time organising poll tax non-payment and resistance to water privatisation.

[Paul Cockshott]

So you didnt hold the theory that capitalism was restored in the USSR after Stalin's death? I know the Scottish Seperatist Group had links with the Russian Maoist Party which regards the USSR as having become social-fascist under Krushev (sorry about spelling) but I also have heard that the SSG are basically a state front.

That was the line in the 60s I think, but by the 80s people in the WPS were more pro USSR. I worked on Towards a New Socialism while I was in the WPS and I thought that it was still socialist but in danger of going capitalist. In the early 90s we published a pamphlet 'Counter Revolution in Eastern Europe' which took the line that what was happening was a restoration of capitalism. If I recall people thought that Gorbachov was a Trot counter revolutionary.

[Proletarian Ultra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Although a choice between options I don't necessarily disagree with. How about debating what I am actually criticizing instead? I am sorry if I have been a bit unspecific,

Because what you're criticizing is of very little interest to me. I've asked several specific programmatic questions, and you've responded each time by ignoring them, doing a by the numbers dismissal of 'national liberation' in general, and then a lot of high school gossip about various Republican groups.

I've had a hard time making head or tails of your posts.

If what you're saying is that campaigning for a single, secular Republic is inadequate...well, I agree. But so is campaigning against the Dublin bin tax - and CWI was all over that one.

[Robocommie]

Pardon me if this has been broached already in the thread, but I haven't gone through all seven pages and I just have one or two questions as regards Ireland. I personally support Irish Republicanism and Irish unity. But how many northern Irish are loyalists? Of the northern Irish who ARE loyalists, is there any consistency as to their class identity?

Also, for the sake of better understanding, what is the exact nature of the repression and abuses going on in northern Ireland that makes independence from Great Britain so important?

[pastradamus]

Pardon me if this has been broached already in the thread, but I haven't gone through all seven pages and I just have one or two questions as regards Ireland. I personally support Irish Republicanism and Irish unity. But how many northern Irish are loyalists? Of the northern Irish who ARE loyalists, is there any consistency as to their class identity?

Also, for the sake of better understanding, what is the exact nature of the repression and abuses going on in northern Ireland that makes independence from Great Britain so important?

Well if the results of the Westminister election are anything to go by:

Unionists 50.5%, Republicans/Nationalists 42.0%, Others 7.5%

[Universal Struggle]

In Ireland at the present time there are at work a variety of agencies seeking to preserve the national sentiment in the hearts of the people.
These agencies, whether Irish Language movements, Literary Societies or Commemoration Committees, are undoubtedly doing a work of lasting benefit to this country in helping to save from extinction the precious racial and national history, language and characteristics of our people.
Nevertheless, there is a danger that by too strict an adherence to their present methods of propaganda, and consequent neglect of vital living issues, they may only succeed in stereotyping our historical studies into a worship of the past, or crystallising nationalism into a tradition – glorious and heroic indeed, but still only a tradition.
Now traditions may, and frequently do, provide materials for a glorious martyrdom, but can never be strong enough to ride the storm of a successful revolution.
If the national movement of our day is not merely to re-enact the old sad tragedies of our past history, it must show itself capable of rising to the exigencies of the moment.
It must demonstrate to the people of Ireland that our nationalism is not merely a morbid idealising of the past, but is also capable of formulating a distinct and definite answer to the problems of the present and a political and economic creed capable of adjustment to the wants of the future.
This concrete political and social ideal will best be supplied, I believe, by the frank acceptance on the part of ail earnest nationalists of the Republic as their goal.
Not a Republic, as in France, where a capitalist monarchy with an elective head parodies the constitutional abortions of England, and in open alliance with the Muscovite despotism brazenly flaunts its apostasy to the traditions of the Revolution.
Not a Republic as in the United States, where the power of the purse has established a new tyranny under the forms of freedom; where, one hundred years after the feet of the last British red-coat polluted the streets of Boston, British landlords and financiers impose upon American citizens a servitude compared with which the tax of pre-Revolution days was a mere trifle.
No! the Republic I would wish our fellow-countrymen to set before them as their ideal should be of such a character that the mere mention of its name would at all times serve as a beacon-light to the oppressed of every land, at all times holding forth promise of freedom and plenteousness as the reward of their efforts on its behalf.
To the tenant farmer, ground between landlordism on the one hand and American competition on the other, as between the upper and the nether millstone; to the wage-workers in the towns, suffering from the exactions of the slave-driving capitalist to the agricultural labourer, toiling away his life for a wage barely sufficient to keep body and soul together; in fact to every one of the toiling millions upon whose misery the outwardly-splendid fabric of our modern civilisation is reared, the Irish Republic might be made a word to conjure with – a rallying point for the disaffected, a haven for the oppressed, a point of departure for the Socialist, enthusiastic in the cause of human freedom.
This linking together of our national aspirations with the hopes of the men and women who have raised the standard of revolt against that system of capitalism and landlordism, of which the British Empire is the most aggressive type and resolute defender, should not, in any sense, import an element of discord into the ranks of earnest nationalists, and would serve to place us in touch with fresh reservoirs of moral and physical strength sufficient to lift the cause of Ireland to a more commanding position than it has occupied since the day of Benburb.
It may be pleaded that the ideal of a Socialist Republic, implying, as it does, a complete political and economic revolution would be sure to alienate all our middle-class and aristocratic supporters, who would dread the loss of their property and privileges.
What does this objection mean? That we must conciliate the privileged classes in Ireland!
But you can only disarm their hostility by assuring them that in a free Ireland their ‘privileges␁ will not be interfered with. That is to say, you must guarantee that when Ireland is free of foreign domination, the green-coated Irish soldiers will guard the fraudulent gains of capitalist and landlord from ‘the thin hands of the poor’ just as remorselessly and just as effectually as the scarlet-coated emissaries of England do today.
On no other basis will the classes unite with you. Do you expect the masses to fight for this ideal?
When you talk of freeing Ireland, do you only mean the chemical elements which compose the soil of Ireland? Or is it the Irish people you mean? If the latter, from what do you propose to free them? From the rule of England?
But all systems of political administration or governmental machinery are but the reflex of the economic forms which underlie them.
English rule in England is but the symbol of the fact that English conquerors in the past forced upon this country a property system founded upon spoliation, fraud and murder: that, as the present-day exercise of the ‘rights of property’ so originated involves the continual practice of legalised spoliation and fraud, English rule is found to be the most suitable form of government by which the spoliation can be protected, and an English army the most pliant tool with which to execute judicial murder when the fears of the propertied classes demand it.
The Socialist who would destroy, root and branch, the whole brutally materialistic system of civilisation, which like the English language we have adopted as our own, is, I hold, a far more deadly foe to English rule and tutelage, than the superficial thinker who imagines it possible to reconcile Irish freedom with those insidious but disastrous forms of economic subjection – landlord tyranny, capitalist fraud and unclean usury; baneful fruits of the Norman Conquest, the unholy trinity, of which Strongbow and Diarmuid MacMurchadha – Norman thief and Irish traitor – were the fitting precursors and apostles.
If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain.
England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.
England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed.
Nationalism without Socialism – without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social structure of Ancient Erin - is only national recreancy.
It would be tantamount to a public declaration that our oppressors had so far succeeded in inoculating us with their perverted conceptions of justice and morality that we had finally decided to accept those conceptions as our own, and no longer needed an alien army to force them upon us.
As a Socialist I am prepared to do all one man can do to achieve for our motherland her rightful heritage – independence; but if you ask me to abate one jot or tittle of the claims of social justice, in order to conciliate the privileged classes, then I must decline.
Such action would be neither honourable nor feasible. Let us never forget that he never reaches Heaven who marches thither in the company of the Devil. Let us openly proclaim our faith: the logic of events is with us.

[here for the revolution]

You end up saying one religion is good and the other bad which is an odd position for atheistic socialism.

I have no opinion on either religion, all I stated was that the Catholic population is growing faster than the Protestant population.
The links between Catholicism and Republicanism, as well as the links between Protestantism and Loyalism, show that a United Ireland would only occur in the near future through an increased consolidation of power in Catholics hand.
I believe that religion and in turn opinions on the status of NI ensure that a widespread, Catholic and Protestant workers struggle could not happen any time soon. Therefore, the only way for a United Ireland would be through Catholic domination, unfortunately.

[No pasarán]

I have no opinion on either religion, all I stated was that the Catholic population is growing faster than the Protestant population.
The links between Catholicism and Republicanism, as well as the links between Protestantism and Loyalism, show that a United Ireland would only occur in the near future through an increased consolidation of power in Catholics hand.
I believe that religion and in turn opinions on the status of NI ensure that a widespread, Catholic and Protestant workers struggle could not happen any time soon. Therefore, the only way for a United Ireland would be through Catholic domination, unfortunately.

NO! NO! NO!

The last thing we want is more power for the catholic church, or any of the protestant churches. To quote Connolly yet again...

"The day has passed for patching up the capitalist system; it must go. And in the work of abolishing it the Catholic and the Protestant, the Catholic and the Jew, the Catholic and the Freethinker, the Catholic and the Buddhist, the Catholic and the Mahometan will co-operate together, knowing no rivalry but the rivalry of endeavour toward an end beneficial to all. For, as we have said elsewhere, socialism is neither Protestant nor Catholic, Christian nor Freethinker, Buddhist, Mahometan, nor Jew; it is only Human. We of the socialist working class realise that as we suffer together we must work together that we may enjoy together."

But personely I think what Ireland really needs is more atheism.

[No pasarán]

I accept your point about the broad spectrum of people who have been involved in the movement.

Thankyou it might intrest you and some of the others to read the following statements from Éirígí and IRSM

"éirígí believes that a Democratic Socialist Republic can only be established and sustained through the collective action of a progressive social movement incorporating local communities, organised labour, cultural organisations, campaigns groups and political parties. The very diversity of such a coalition will be its strength. éirígí will be part of such a coalition, working on shared projects with other progressive individuals and groups in Ireland.

This co-operation and outreach to other progressive forces cannot be restricted to the island of Ireland. The fight against capitalism and imperialism is by necessity a global one. The emergent global justice movement represents a real and growing bulwark to oppression and exploitation throughout the world. We in éirígí believe that it is from within this movement that a new and truly progressive era of international co-operation and solidarity will emerge. éirígí is committed playing an active role within this movement."

AND

"The IRSP seeks the creation of a new revolutionary state in Ireland, the smashing of both states, not the merging of two already existing sectarian entities. The IRSP seeks to establish the democratic rule of the working class at the head of the means of production, distribution and exchange - the true liberation of the Irish people.
The IRSP is not nationalist, but an internationalist party that actively intervenes in the struggles of working people around the globe."

[Jolly Red Giant]

I was doing my best to avoid commenting on this thread - but I would like to address this -


Thankyou it might intrest you and some of the others to read the following statements from Éirígí and IRSM
In relation to the national question in Ireland the issue is not about the public pronouncements that different organisations make (although over time a certain consistancy - or inconsistancy - emerges) - it is about the actions of these organisations and how events influence and affect their outlook.

Both Eirigi and the IRSM would regard themselves as republican socialist organisations, both undoubtedly have committed left activists. The problem that will emerge (and has in the past for the IRSP/INLA) is that at a certain point the republicanism and the socialism will come into conflict - and each organisation and the members of each organisation will then have to make a decision to shift to republicanism or to socialism. This conflict could result from a minor issue or it could result from a major conflict within the Northern statelet. Either way it is inevitable that for any organisation that bases itself on both republicanism and socialism there will be an apex of conflict that will have to be resolved by either shifting the organisation to the right and to republicanism or shifting it to the left. It is likely that the determining factor in which direction these organisations will go will be determined by the strength, consciousness and combatability of the working class and the existance of an independent class strategy.

At the moment neither Eirigi or the IRSM have, in my opinion, demonstrated the ability or the consciousness to operate on an independent class basis and if this political conflict arose in the near future I would expect both to go back to their republican roots. I did hope Eirigi might be able to move more to an independent class position (and I had discussions with members of Eirigi about this) but, unfortunately in my opinion, as they have progressed - their progression has been in a republican direction. If they had instead moved in the direction of an independent class position I think they would have been a significant pole of attraction for left activists within republicanism. As it stands they are pretty much indistinguishable from a myriad of other left republican organisations that have existed.

The biggest problem for the IRSM is the baggage of the last forty years - the history and strategy of the INLA. This baggage is and will continue to prohibit the IRSM gaining support from the majority of the Catholic working class in the North, gaining support from any Protestant worker (outside of the occasional indivdiual) and gaining support from the overwhelming majority of the working class in the South. In truth I cannot see any further real and concrete expansion of the IRSM outside of within sections of the Catholic community if there is an upsurge of sectarian violence on the scale of the early 1970's. And even with this scenario the IRSM would be competing with several other (and probably bigger) republican organisations and could possibly resort to more outrageous actions than other republican paramilitaries in order to get some attention (as happened on more than one occasion during the INLA campaign).

Left republican organisations (and the cheerleaders on here that support them) argue that you have to 'resist' imperialism. The objective of the working class is not to 'resist' imperialism - but to defeat imperialism. The strategy of paramilitarism is a strategy to 'resist' - not a strategy to defeat. And this has amply be demonstrated by the events of the past 40 years. Irish unity is not one inch closer now than it was in 1970 despite all the 'resistance'. Republicanism has not played a progressive role over the past 40 years - it has brought an entire generation of working class youth down, what I would consider, a blind alley of paramilitarism - it has re-inforced unionism among large sections of the protestant working class and it has facilitated the hand of Imperialism in imposing repression on the working class in the North. It has also alienated entire sections of the Southern working class from what could be called the traditional 'socialist republican' position of the likes of James Connolly, Larkin and people like Peadar O'Donnell and George Gilmore (note by the way how I placed the word 'socialist' before 'republican').

Imperialism can only be defeated by united working class action moving towards socialist revolution on a national and international basis. This is not to say (as has been suggested on here) that the Irish working class have to wait for the British working class to defeat British Imperialism - but it would be inevitable that as the Irish working class move into a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary phase of consciousness, that such a movement would have a considerable impact on the working class in England, Scotland and Wales. Similarly, such movements in Britain would have an enormous impact and influence on the workers movement on this island. The same would apply on the impact and influence on workers movements in other European countries. We have no way of predicting how events will pan out.

However, and this is important, events could also develop in the opposite direction. It cannot be ruled out that a large-scale sectarian conflict could engulf the North at some point - the longer the working class in the North fail to gravitate towards an independent class position the greater the danger that sectarian conflict could develop. In the event of such a sectarian conflict both the working class in the South and the working class in Britain would inevitably be drawn into the conflict - setting back the workers movement potentially for generations.

Republican socialists must consider their political positions - and inevitable must either act to help develop an independent class movement in the North or else they will end up becoming embroiled as combatants in a sectarian conflict (and possibly even be responsible for escalating it to the point where it wrecks the workers movement). These are the issues that left republicans need to address - not just on an internet forum - but within their own organisations and within the workers movement as a whole.

[As an addemdum - do the clowns that are talking about the Catholic population becoming the majority in the North not realise that a united Ireland will not arise out of a simple referendum vote by the establishment - or by the Catholic population engaging in attempting to force the Protestant working class into a united Ireland. Such a strategy will inevitably lead to destabilisation of the situation in the North and open sectarian conflict. The bourgeois strategists are not stupid enough to go down that route if it can at all be avoided]

[Andropov]

In relation to the national question in Ireland the issue is not about the public pronouncements that different organisations make (although over time a certain consistancy - or inconsistancy - emerges) - it is about the actions of these organisations and how events influence and affect their outlook.
I agree.

Both Eirigi and the IRSM would regard themselves as republican socialist organisations, both undoubtedly have committed left activists. The problem that will emerge (and has in the past for the IRSP/INLA) is that at a certain point the republicanism and the socialism will come into conflict - and each organisation and the members of each organisation will then have to make a decision to shift to republicanism or to socialism. This conflict could result from a minor issue or it could result from a major conflict within the Northern statelet. Either way it is inevitable that for any organisation that bases itself on both republicanism and socialism there will be an apex of conflict that will have to be resolved by either shifting the organisation to the right and to republicanism or shifting it to the left. It is likely that the determining factor in which direction these organisations will go will be determined by the strength, consciousness and combatability of the working class and the existance of an independent class strategy.
This is an interesting analysis JRG and slightly different to your usual petulent mud slinging.
But I strongly disagree with this conclusion because it is all based on the assumption that Socialism and Republicanism lie at opposing ends of the political spectrum.
To put it simply Republicanism is the Nationalism of the oppressed, of the the victims of Imperialism.
This form of Nationalism is indeed a wholey different breadth to that of National Chauvanism or the like as the likes of Marx, Engels and Lenin have all concluded.
This Nationalism of the oppressed can be harnessed by progressive forces.
Now since I have outlined how your conclusion that Republicanism and Socialism are at opposing ends of the political spectrum is indeed a incorrect assumption I would like to refer to the splits and feuds etc which you have mentioned.
Now essentially these splits and feuds boiled down to different political perspectives on the given context and one side attempting to assert their perspective above their rivals. This is what happened when the OIRA attacked the IRSM, when the PIRA attacked the OIRA, when IPLO attacked the IRSM, when the PIRA attacked IPLO etc etc.
Of course there will be political discourse and opposing perspectives and analysis of the given contexts and unfortunately this will lead to splits.
But this is no different to virtually every Leftist Organisation in the world.
Every Leftist organisation in the world has either been the victim of a split or had a split hence why so many exist throughout the world today.
The only difference being in the context of Ireland is that it was in the midst of a war of National Liberation hence when a split occured it eventually led to bloodshed over logistical reasons in military matters, as was the context.
It had nothing to do with a supposed contradictory mish mash of leftist and right politics.

At the moment neither Eirigi or the IRSM have, in my opinion, demonstrated the ability or the consciousness to operate on an independent class basis and if this political conflict arose in the near future I would expect both to go back to their republican roots. I did hope Eirigi might be able to move more to an independent class position (and I had discussions with members of Eirigi about this) but, unfortunately in my opinion, as they have progressed - their progression has been in a republican direction. If they had instead moved in the direction of an independent class position I think they would have been a significant pole of attraction for left activists within republicanism. As it stands they are pretty much indistinguishable from a myriad of other left republican organisations that have existed.
I cannot speak for Eirigi for obvious reasons il just refer to the IRSM referance their.
You say that if political conflict arose in the near future we would "go back to our Republican roots".
But this brings us back to your conclusion that Republicanism and Socialism are at opposing ends of the political spectrum.
Republicanism and Socialism must go hand in hand and the war of National Liberation that the INLA fought for decades was just an extension of the struggle for the emancipation of the working class.
Obviously you will strongly disagree with this as the CWI position on National Liberation struggles is in direct contradiction with my own.

The biggest problem for the IRSM is the baggage of the last forty years - the history and strategy of the INLA. This baggage is and will continue to prohibit the IRSM gaining support from the majority of the Catholic working class in the North,
The support that the IRSM has in the Derry City, Strabane and Belfast is quite impressive for a Marxist-Leninist party.
I know you will disagree with me because it does not sit well with your political perspective but I suggest you visit areas like the Head of the town in Strabane, Shantallow and Galliagh in Derry, Ardoyne and Short Strand and Andytown in Belfast.
We are of course not the most popular party in working class areas in the North but we are gaining increasing support.
As for this "baggage" you mention well that is a tad ridiculous tbh.
This "baggage" effectively involves whole working class communities who either served as Volunteers or in some way facilitated the likes of the PIRA and INLA.
Not to mention the way whole communities were involved in daily conflict with the forces of occupation.
This "baggage" you speak of is actually not "baggage" at all once you cross the border, it was just daily life in the communitys.

gaining support from any Protestant worker (outside of the occasional indivdiual
Indeed.
The IRSM's support in Protestant communities is non-existant that is without a doubt.
An uncomfortable fact for Leftists is that the majority of the Protestant working class support support the degenerate ideology of Loyalism.
Which is effectively a pro-Imperialist, pro-bigoted and racial supremcist ideology.
We should of course attempt to win these workers to Socialism but I wholey disagree with the failed Gas and Water socialist approach.
This relagates our politics to their short term financial interest and helps justify their degenerate ideology of Loyalism hence why you see the CWI supporting Orange March's and the like.

and gaining support from the overwhelming majority of the working class in the South.
This I do agree on that in the medium term the IRSM will find it very difficult to gain major support in working class communities in the south.
Obviousy the "baggage" you mentioned earlier will impact in communities in the south no doubt about it.

In truth I cannot see any further real and concrete expansion of the IRSM outside of within sections of the Catholic community if there is an upsurge of sectarian violence on the scale of the early 1970's.
TBH your analysis is wrong.
If you look at the traditional support hearlands in areas of Belfast for example they used to be around the peace walls, areas like Ardoyne and Short Strand we were always well supported.
Now we are eating into the old Provie heartlands of West Belfast because of the growing dissilusionment with the GFA and PSF which has effectively adopted the old SDLP vote.
But as I stated before I cant see us growing in the South in the medium term.

And even with this scenario the IRSM would be competing with several other (and probably bigger) republican organisations and could possibly resort to more outrageous actions than other republican paramilitaries in order to get some attention (as happened on more than one occasion during the INLA campaign).
Ok what in gods name is this?


Could you please expand on this because this I cannot fatham.
Left republican organisations (and the cheerleaders on here that support them) argue that you have to 'resist' imperialism. The objective of the working class is not to 'resist' imperialism - but to defeat imperialism.

Dont misrepresent what posters on here say, including myself.
I dont want to "resist" imperialism, I want to defeat it so your little wordplay is slightly irrelevant.

The strategy of paramilitarism is a strategy to 'resist' - not a strategy to defeat. And this has amply be demonstrated by the events of the past 40 years. Irish unity is not one inch closer now than it was in 1970 despite all the 'resistance'. Republicanism has not played a progressive role over the past 40 years - it has brought an entire generation of working class youth down, what I would consider, a blind alley of paramilitarism
This is disingenuous to say the least.
Obviously the political objective of a United Socialist Republic is still far away but to say it has played a negetive role in the Orange Statelet is just factually wrong.
Thanks to groups like the PIRA and INLA the old statelet could no longer function and the culmination of discrimination and repression in the 60's was eventually abolished.
Now at least there is a degree of equality and alot less state intimidation of a vulnerable minority thanks to the campaign that was waged for 40 years.
Never forget it was those men and women who were willing to put their lives on the line that achieved this.

it has re-inforced unionism among large sections of the protestant working class
Yet again the failed CWI analysis of Unionism and Loyalism.
Unionism and Loyalism is only stoked when the Imperial ties to Britain are threatened by a working class uprising.
This is because of course Unionism and Loyalism and indeed sectarianism are products of Imperialism used to fight those who oppose exploitation in all its forms.

and it has facilitated the hand of Imperialism in imposing repression on the working class in the North.
Now this is just bizarre and totally factually incorrect.
The level of state repression and descrimination now is but a fraction of what it was before the Troubles swung into first gear.

It has also alienated entire sections of the Southern working class from what could be called the traditional 'socialist republican' position of the likes of James Connolly, Larkin and people like Peadar O'Donnell and George Gilmore (note by the way how I placed the word 'socialist' before 'republican').
TBH I havnt found this in the least.
Republicanism has a degree of respect found in working class communities in the south that it doesnt have in the middle class communities.

Imperialism can only be defeated by united working class action moving towards socialist revolution on a national and international basis. This is not to say (as has been suggested on here) that the Irish working class have to wait for the British working class to defeat British Imperialism - but it would be inevitable that as the Irish working class move into a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary phase of consciousness, that such a movement would have a considerable impact on the working class in England, Scotland and Wales. Similarly, such movements in Britain would have an enormous impact and influence on the workers movement on this island. The same would apply on the impact and influence on workers movements in other European countries. We have no way of predicting how events will pan out.
I believe that the war that was fought against imperialism in the previous 40 years was tactically fought wrong and that there was not enough working class mobilisation behind the likes of the INLA.
Either way the current context differs significantly from that of 40 years ago thus our tactics must be different hence why the INLA chose to decomission.
I think in the current context we must focus on working class mobilisation and agitation especially in this climate of financial meltdown.
The tactics of the likes of the cokes or contos of shooting a peeler once a year is just midguided idiocy in my opinion.

However, and this is important, events could also develop in the opposite direction. It cannot be ruled out that a large-scale sectarian conflict could engulf the North at some point - the longer the working class in the North fail to gravitate towards an independent class position the greater the danger that sectarian conflict could develop. In the event of such a sectarian conflict both the working class in the South and the working class in Britain would inevitably be drawn into the conflict - setting back the workers movement potentially for generations.
In the foreseeable future such a sectarian conflict is not likely.
Even the likes of the UVF are attempting to steer their supporters away from sectarian conflict at the moment.
The only real thread to a sectarian incident igniting the tinder box again is from the UDA, the rabid dogs must be kept on their chain.

Republican socialists must consider their political positions - and inevitable must either act to help develop an independent class movement in the North or else they will end up becoming embroiled as combatants in a sectarian conflict (and possibly even be responsible for escalating it to the point where it wrecks the workers movement).
Republican Socialists such as myself do consider their political perspective very carefully.
In this given context I of course oppose a return to armed conflict as it is not tactically viable and I fully support the mobilisation of the working class.
But it is of pivitol importance in what context this mobilisation takes place as I consider the stance of the CWI as tragically flawed in its constant capitulation to Loyalism as it helps Loyalism foster a legitimacy it craves among the Left.
With this Gas and Water socialism we see a bastardised form of Socialism emerging from the Loyalist spectrum with the likes of the PUP.
This is a tried and tested failure as the sticks attempted to court the forces of reaction in Ireland before and essentially this Gas and Water socialism creates NAZ-BOL type politics.

[Demogorgon]

The Irish national question and the question of socialism in the British Isles are united, under capitalism there can be no 32 county free state, and the only way to achieve socialism in Ireland is via independence. The answer to your question is simple: any real socialist supports the struggle for a free and united Ireland, because you can not have socialism without a republic being established. In my opinion socialism and republicanism must take equal priority, however I also think that the first step towards building socialism in Ireland would be establishing a republic. Finally: Anyone who claims to support socialism and opposes Irish unity and the republican movement in general is an idiot.
Not to pick on you particularly, but I decided I would just go for whoever was the first in this thread to use the silly "Free State" rhetoric and it seems it was you.

The Free State was abolished in 1937. Some people think it is a clever bit of rhetoric to keep referring to it, others don't know what they are talking about and think it actually still exists, but in both cases to talk about a state that ceased to exist over seventy years ago as if it still exists simply damages credibility.

To move onto the broader point I want to make, this kind of talk is symptomatic of being stuck in the twenties and thirties in general. There are a bunch of people here who, for all their claims to be leftist, sound like a bunch of latter day De Valeras and indeed in their own way, are as determined to keep Ireland locked in the past as he was.

Any attempt to discuss what goes on in Northern Ireland without understanding what motivates the British and Irish Governments in the twenty first century is doomed to making silly statements. I'll give you a clue: Northern Ireland is one of the poorest parts of the British Isles and costs the British Government a fortune to keep going with very little benefit back. Given the extremely tight fiscal situation right now they would just love to shift the cost to Dublin. It is political reality in Northern Ireland itself that makes that impossible, because so long as a majority of people there oppose reunification, the current situation cannot be changed.

Those of us who would prefer to see partition ended have to work to try and persuade Unionists to change their minds. Engaging in horrible rhetoric that is designed to divide the people of Northern Ireland even further, achieves precisely the opposite.

[Palingenisis]

The Free State was abolished in 1937. Some people think it is a clever bit of rhetoric to keep referring to it, others don't know what they are talking about and think it actually still exists, but in both cases to talk about a state that ceased to exist over seventy years ago as if it still exists simply damages credibility.

Actually the "Republic of Ireland" act dates from 1948 and not 1937 (dont know where you got that date from). Republicans however both than and now reject the right of the Free State to declare itself the the "Republic of Ireland" for two reasons...Reason one is that is it is ony made up of 26 of Ireland's 32 counties....Reason two it came into existence as a State through the suppression by force of arms of the 32 county Republic.

[No pasarán]

Not to pick on you particularly, but I decided I would just go for whoever was the first in this thread to use the silly "Free State" rhetoric and it seems it was you.

The Free State was abolished in 1937. Some people think it is a clever bit of rhetoric to keep referring to it, others don't know what they are talking about and think it actually still exists, but in both cases to talk about a state that ceased to exist over seventy years ago as if it still exists simply damages credibility.

To move onto the broader point I want to make, this kind of talk is symptomatic of being stuck in the twenties and thirties in general. There are a bunch of people here who, for all their claims to be leftist, sound like a bunch of latter day De Valeras and indeed in their own way, are as determined to keep Ireland locked in the past as he was.

Any attempt to discuss what goes on in Northern Ireland without understanding what motivates the British and Irish Governments in the twenty first century is doomed to making silly statements. I'll give you a clue: Northern Ireland is one of the poorest parts of the British Isles and costs the British Government a fortune to keep going with very little benefit back. Given the extremely tight fiscal situation right now they would just love to shift the cost to Dublin. It is political reality in Northern Ireland itself that makes that impossible, because so long as a majority of people there oppose reunification, the current situation cannot be changed.

Those of us who would prefer to see partition ended have to work to try and persuade Unionists to change their minds. Engaging in horrible rhetoric that is designed to divide the people of Northern Ireland even further, achieves precisely the opposite.

I think I speak for most republican socialists/ socialst republicans.. how ever you wanna define it, when I say we hate old De Valera. He sold his country out to the church and romantic nationalisim.

But, and this is my views now, not trying to represent everyone else here... However you want to define the south of ireland, its goverment needs to be changed. Not to simply be replaced by a 32 state republic, but a socialist nation, that doesn't view its self as a end product, but as a step to bulding some sort of worldwide federation of socialist states.

And it doesn't seem like you have really read the thread, just skimmed it. I've stated again and again and again that more needs to be done by republicans to reach out to unionists and make them see that neither goverment has their best intrests at heart, but are just exploting the people of both countries. One of the other most important things is to destroy the influence of the church.

[Demogorgon]

Actually the "Republic of Ireland" act dates from 1948 and not 1937 (dont know where you got that date from). Republicans however both than and now reject the right of the Free State to declare itself the the "Republic of Ireland" for two reasons...Reason one is that is it is ony made up of 26 of Ireland's 32 counties....Reason two it came into existence as a State through the suppression by force of arms of the 32 county Republic.
No, you see, already you are damaging your credibility with broken claims. The 1937 date was the date of the abolition of the Free State and the proclamation of the current Constitution (with an elected President). The 1948 date is the date of the repeal of the External Relations Act-an act that allowed ambassadors to be sent and received in the name of the "king of Ireland", preventing the President from being the true head of State.

Actually, as it happens, one could argue the "free state" as it was understood actually ended in 1932 with incorporation of the Statute of Westminster into Irish Law and the freeing of the Free State for its obligations under the Anglo-Irish treaty. But as 1937 was the year of formal abolition, let's stick with that.

Not knowing something as basic as that heavily damages one's claims to know what they are talking about when it comes to Irish history.

As for the notion of the Irish Government not having the "right" to declare a Republic, you are on shaky grounds there as if you mean in terms of bourgeoisie legalism, then you are plain wrong, because it obviously did have the right and if you mean in some form of socialist terms-well you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes a state.

[No pasarán]

It still didn't formaly become the republic till 1949... but this thread is not supposed to be about examining points of the irish consitution but how the situation in Ireland can evolve into something that better supports ALL of the people in the geographic island or Ireland...?

[Palingenisis]

No, you see, already you are damaging your credibility with broken claims. The 1937 date was the date of the abolition of the Free State and the proclamation of the current Constitution (with an elected President). The 1948 date is the date of the repeal of the External Relations Act-an act that allowed ambassadors to be sent and received in the name of the "king of Ireland", preventing the President from being the true head of State.

De Velara was very keen not to declare a Republic though...wonder why?

[Demogorgon]

I think I speak for most republican socialists/ socialst republicans.. how ever you wanna define it, when I say we hate old De Valera. He sold his country out to the church and romantic nationalisim.

But, and this is my views now, not trying to represent everyone else here... However you want to define the south of ireland, its goverment needs to be changed. Not to simply be replaced by a 32 state republic, but a socialist nation, that doesn't view its self as a end product, but as a step to bulding some sort of worldwide federation of socialist states.

And it doesn't seem like you have really read the thread, just skimmed it. I've stated again and again and again that more needs to be done by republicans to reach out to unionists and make them see that neither goverment has their best intrests at heart, but are just exploting the people of both countries. One of the other most important things is to destroy the influence of the church.Well if I thought you liked De Valera, I would hardly go to the effort of pointing out the irony that you sound just like him, would I! The point I am making is that when I read your (plural) rhetoric, and I don't mean just in this thread or just on RevLeft, what I am struck by is the similarity between this so called socialist position and De Valera, not just in the nationalist rhetoric, but also in the way I feel its only effect can be to hold back Ireland. What I mean is, De Valera spent half his time in romantic dreams of Irish Nationhood and the other half thumping his Bible. The upshot of that backwards looking rubbish was by the time he shuffled off to the Presidency and out of active politics the second least developed country in Western Europe, he choked development.

Similarly I believe that by being caught up in yesterday's Sectarian Wars you hurt the progressive movement in Ireland, or at best simply cut yourself off from them. And for all the rhetoric about how you have to reach out to protestants, the fact is you don't, you terrify them. You see Protestant Working Class people marching into the polling station and voting for the DUP and frankly it makes me despair. But a large part of the reason that so many working class people have been driven into Paisley's arms is that Protestant people had real reason to be frightened-as much as Catholic people did of the loyalist thugs and Paisley was able to exploit that.

Building a progressive movement amongst working class protestants means emphasising working class issues, not nationalistic ones.

[Demogorgon]

De Velara was very keen not to declare a Republic though...wonder why?
On the contrary, he was extremely keen to, that's why he wrote a President into the Constitution years before a Republic could actually be declared. The fact was a Republic was not possible under the circumstances at that point.

[No pasarán]

I don't view myself as being caught up in sectarianisim, but I would ask what were the republican people supposed to do when the loyalist/ union communities started to oppress them even worse when they began the civil rights marches? As fractured and ill fought at times as the troubles were, what else where people supposed to do? The British goverment showed itself to be very happy to continue to oppress them and to allow the union to continue and to be ruled by its loyalists? Were black people wrong to rise up and demand civil rights? Should Apartheid still be in place in south africa, or the european immperalists still be in power across the world, supressing those in their conolies? Maybe a peaceful situation could have been reached if the British goverment had acted in a fairer way, but it didn't.

But yes, we need to break down the old divisions. I am very happy to have friends in Belfast from loyalist backgrounds who are open minded and share many of the same ideals if not every ideal on the status of their 'nation'. And I do agree with your very last point.

[Demogorgon]

I don't view myself as being caught up in sectarianisim, but I would ask what were the republican people supposed to do when the loyalist/ union communities started to oppress them even worse when they began the civil rights marches? As fractured and ill fought at times as the troubles were, what else where people supposed to do? The British goverment showed itself to be very happy to continue to oppress them and to allow the union to continue and to be ruled by its loyalists? Were black people wrong to rise up and demand civil rights? Should Apartheid still be in place in south africa, or the european immperalists still be in power across the world, supressing those in their conolies? Maybe a peaceful situation could have been reached if the British goverment had acted in a fairer way, but it didn't.

But yes, we need to break down the old divisions. I am very happy to have friends in Belfast from loyalist backgrounds who are open minded and share many of the same ideals if not every ideal on the status of their 'nation'. And I do agree with your very last point.
You are asking a different question now and one that has a different answer. There was terrible oppression of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland by the Unionist Stormont Government. I presume everybody reading this thread knows the details, so I don't think I need to repeat them, but I'm sure we all agree that they needed resisting, but there are too salient points here, the first is that this wasn't oppression coming from Britain, but was internal discrimination. If you watch Unionist politics, apart from a very few oddballs, you actually see a lot of resentment from Unionist politicians to what they see as the British Government keeping them on a leash. Some on the most extreme right have actually favoured political independence for Northern Ireland allowing it to function as its own State sharing a monarchy and some institutions, but allowed to remove all restraints and do precisely as they liked to the Catholic population. So basically we aren't talking about external oppression here, we are talking about internal oppression. I think I have made clear my answer to your question at this point, but just in case I haven't: yes it was right to rise up against the Unionist Government and yes use of force became necessary. But that was forty years ago.

Anyway, moving on to the second important point, the Irish Government didn't give a damn about the suffering in Norther Ireland. There were members of the British Cabinet in the sixties who were deeply opposed to what the the Northern Irish Government was doing and went to Lynch to see if they could come up with a strategy for the Governments to coordinate to stop the oppression of Catholics and he sent them away. So with that attitude I am not entirely convinced that simply having the Dublin Government involved instead of the London one would have helped things much. Don't forget that the only option on the table for a United Ireland at the time of the Anglo-Irish treaty was for one in which there would still be a devolved Government in the six counties within the Irish State. It is quite possible that much the same thing could have happened even in a United Ireland.

That being said, I do think it would have been less likely had Ireland never been partitioned but again the reason it was partitioned was down to the Unionists in Northern Ireland. The British Government had not intended to partition Ireland at first, but was forced to by the large numbers of armed Unionists in Northern Ireland backed by sections of the Conservative Party in the UK who threatened to massacre Catholics if their demands were not met.

Now you might say there is a discrepancy between my previous post where I called for cross community Unity in Northern Ireland as a necessary precondition to a decent progressive movement and this post where I blamed Unionists in Northern Ireland for most of the problems there, but there isn't. First of all you can't blame working class protestants who feel a tie to Britain for what the ruling class did and secondly you can't blame the current generation for what their parents ad Grandparents did. What I talked about here happened a long time ago and much as we might wish it, we can't change it and are left with the situation we have now, so all that can be done is to try and work with it, it is pointless to fight yesterday's battles.

[No pasarán]

I agree with most of that last post, I have no illusions about the southern irish goverment anymore than the british goverment. I am very well aware of Irish History I've been studying it since I could read. I am not adovocating continued armed struggle either. Its had its day as far as I can see.

I could make some other points, but I need to get some some sleep.

[Proletarian Ultra]

It is true that past a certain point, republican socialism will run up against a limit where republicanism comes into contradiction with socialism. It's not just true - it's a truism. Any such intermediate goal will reach a limit where it comes into contradiction with socialism. It's true, obviously, of things like trade unionism. Past a certain point the bureaucratic structures that press for higher wages will become an obstacle to the abolition of the wage system entirely.

It's true of republicanism. It's also true of studied non-republicanism. Past a certain point, when you've organized this cross-sectarian worker's movement, people will start to ask why 26 counties are governed by a sectarian Catholic clique and 6 counties are governed by a sectarian Protestant clique. I find it hard to see how you come up with any answer other than a 32 county secular socialist republic.

Now, if I can be forgiven for caricaturing everyone's positions a bit, half the posters in this thread are advocating the following:

1. Build a cross-sectarian coalition around immediate economic demands.
2. ???
3. SOCIALISM!!!!

While the other half counterpose:

1. ???
2. 32 County Secular Socialist Republic
3. SOCIALISM!!!!

The fact that it's difficult to pose the obvious, and to convincingly advocate:

1. Build a cross-sectarian coalition around immediate economic demands.
2. 32 County Secular Socialist Republic
3. SOCIALISM!!!!

Is precisely why capitalism has so much staying power.

Lastly, on the point that Republicanism does not have majority support...well this is a real problem, but then again neither does Marxism.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Now, if I can be forgiven for caricaturing everyone's positions a bit, half the posters in this thread are advocating the following:

1. Build a cross-sectarian coalition around immediate economic demands.
2. ???
3. SOCIALISM!!!!

While the other half counterpose:

1. ???
2. 32 County Secular Socialist Republic
3. SOCIALISM!!!!

The fact that it's difficult to pose the obvious, and to convincingly advocate:

1. Build a cross-sectarian coalition around immediate economic demands.
2. 32 County Secular Socialist Republic
3. SOCIALISM!!!!
...

Except some of us believe your '32 county socialist republic' is a dream. Any set of stages that includes '32 county socialist republic' is doomed to fail.

I would caricature the positions as follows:
1 - advocate working class unity
2 - world revolution
3 - SOCIALISM!

and:
1 - piggy-back nationalism
2 - bourgeois unification
3 - HOPE IT'S BETTER WITHOUT THE BRITS!

There is no 'socialist republic'. Honestly. Look at Poland, please, and think very hard about what happened there. Would you want an 'Irish Socialist Republic' opposed to a 'British Soviet Republic' let's say? Not that I think there will ever be a 'British Soviet Republic' but if you think there will be an 'Irish Socialist Republic' then a 'British Soviet Republic' must also be a possibility, mustn't it?

[Jolly Red Giant]

But I strongly disagree with this conclusion because it is all based on the assumption that Socialism and Republicanism lie at opposing ends of the political spectrum.
I never said that socialism and republicanism were at opposite ends of the political spectrum - I said that at a certain point it is inevitable that they come into conflict with one another.


To put it simply Republicanism is the Nationalism of the oppressed, of the the victims of Imperialism.
And you suggest that I played on words!


This form of Nationalism is indeed a wholey different breadth to that of National Chauvanism or the like as the likes of Marx, Engels and Lenin have all concluded.
In fact your understanding of the position of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the Irish question is completely inaccurate - the position of Marx Engels and Lenin is wholly consistant with the position of the CWI and in conflict with left republican groups.



Now since I have outlined how your conclusion that Republicanism and Socialism are at opposing ends of the political spectrum is indeed a incorrect assumption I would like to refer to the splits and feuds etc which you have mentioned.
In the context of this discussion I never mentioned the feuds within republicanism - the feuds are actually irrelevent in this discussion except for the fact that they are a manifestation of the conflict between socialism and republicanism that I talked about.



But this brings us back to your conclusion that Republicanism and Socialism are at opposing ends of the political spectrum.
Again you are attempting to knock down a paper castle that you created - no matter how many times you repeat this claim it does not make it so. If you want an analogy about what I am outlining it would be a case of left republicanism meeting a fork on a road and having to choose which turn to take.


Republicanism and Socialism must go hand in hand and the war of National Liberation that the INLA fought for decades was just an extension of the struggle for the emancipation of the working class. Obviously you will strongly disagree with this as the CWI position on National Liberation struggles is in direct contradiction with my own.
Yes I do disagree - the INLA campaign was a campaign of individual terror, an urban guerilla campaign - it had nothing in common with what has historically been regarded as a campaign of national liberation which is based on a mass rural guerilla movement based on the peasantry in an economically under-developed country (i.e. Nepal).


The support that the IRSM has in the Derry City, Strabane and Belfast is quite impressive for a Marxist-Leninist party.
I know you will disagree with me because it does not sit well with your political perspective but I suggest you visit areas like the Head of the town in Strabane, Shantallow and Galliagh in Derry, Ardoyne and Short Strand and Andytown in Belfast.
I know the scale of the IRSM support - and it has expanded since the ending of the paramilitary campaign - but that does not negate the point I was making about the potential for the growth in support for the IRSM.



As for this "baggage" you mention well that is a tad ridiculous tbh.
This "baggage" effectively involves whole working class communities who either served as Volunteers or in some way facilitated the likes of the PIRA and INLA.
This is nonsense to be honest - local communities (on both sides of the sectarian divide it has to be said) for most of the Troubles no more than tolerated the paramilitary groupings on the basis that they were engaged in some aspect of community defence from sectarian attack from paramilitaries and sectarians on the other side of the divide.

One aspect that can demonstrate this is the lack of support in elections received by political wings of paramilitary organisations pretty much right up until the ceasefires (with the exception of the hunger strikes which were a different political character).


Not to mention the way whole communities were involved in daily conflict with the forces of occupation.

Again - community opposition on baracades etc are of a different political character to acts of individual terror. The difficulty for left republicans is often an inability to differentiate between acts of individual terror and community based actions - it should also be remembered that community based actions can be reactionary in character and/or can be foisted on a community by paramilitaries (the conflict at the Holy Cross school is an example of this).



The IRSM's support in Protestant communities is non-existant that is without a doubt.
An uncomfortable fact for Leftists is that the majority of the Protestant working class support support the degenerate ideology of Loyalism.
Which is effectively a pro-Imperialist, pro-bigoted and racial supremcist ideology.
It is an uncomfortable fact for left republicans that they need to dismiss the Protestant working class as bigotted loyalists - it facilitates left republicanism in allowing organisations like the IRSM to opt out of analysing the nature of sectarianism in the North, justifying the actions of republican paramilitaries and ignoring the realities and difficulties facing the protestant working class.


We should of course attempt to win these workers to Socialism but I wholey disagree with the failed Gas and Water socialist approach. This relagates our politics to their short term financial interest and helps justify their degenerate ideology of Loyalism hence why you see the CWI supporting Orange March's and the like.
Andropov - the jibe about gas and water socialism is a sectarian jibe against the CWI that at best could be described as inappropriate. It is the type of comment that I react to with my more common one-liners about republican paramilitaries.

On the more substantive issue - left republicans always say We should of course attempt to win these workers to Socialism - the problem is that left republicans do not, in reality, make any attempt to win Protestant workers to socialism - they adopt the attitude that the Protestant working class should come over to supporting the 'national liberation' movement and if they don't they are bigotted loyalists who should confronted in the march to national liberation.

I have yet to see any outline from any left republican group on any other strategy that they have for winning these workers.


TBH your analysis is wrong.
If you look at the traditional support hearlands in areas of Belfast for example they used to be around the peace walls, areas like Ardoyne and Short Strand we were always well supported.
Now we are eating into the old Provie heartlands of West Belfast because of the growing dissilusionment with the GFA and PSF which has effectively adopted the old SDLP vote.
And again I would argue that the support received, particularly by the INLA was one born out of necessity rather than active support - a tolerence of their existance because of a minor level of security it afforded to a vulnerable community.

It is also not surprising that SF support in traditional republican areas of Belfast is being undermined and support for more hardline republican groups is growing - but I would argue that this is not a good thing as it is storing up the potential for future sectarian conflict.



Dont misrepresent what posters on here say, including myself.
I dont want to "resist" imperialism, I want to defeat it so your little wordplay is slightly irrelevant.
Repeatedly on this forum the supporters of paramilitary organisations have justified paramilitary activity on the basis that they have a duty to resist Imperialism. But I will pose this question to you - what is your strategy for the defeat of British imperialism?



Thanks to groups like the PIRA and INLA the old statelet could no longer function and the culmination of discrimination and repression in the 60's was eventually abolished. Now at least there is a degree of equality and alot less state intimidation of a vulnerable minority thanks to the campaign that was waged for 40 years.
This is blatantly not the case - discrimination and repression firstly has not been abolished and secondly any changes in the situation were not brought about by the paramilitary campaign of republicans. There is a myth particularly among left republicans, that the paramilitary campaign forced the Brits to the negotiating table. This is a falsehood - their strategy for the past 35 years has been one of containment, of maintaining an acceptable level of violence and ensuring the conflict was confined primarily to catholic and protestant ghettoes. Over the course of the paramilitary conflict the British government introduced a whole host of new repressive measures - measures that were facilitated by paramilitary activity.


Never forget it was those men and women who were willing to put their lives on the line that achieved this.
There is not doubt that many people sacrificed their lives - unfortunately in my opinion, in a failed strategy. A united Ireland is not one step closer than it was in 1970. British Imperialism is on weakened by one ounce since 1970. All that has happened is that the paramilitary campaign (on both sides) ran out of steam as working class communities became war-weary.



Unionism and Loyalism is only stoked when the Imperial ties to Britain are threatened by a working class uprising.
This is because of course Unionism and Loyalism and indeed sectarianism are products of Imperialism used to fight those who oppose exploitation in all its forms.
So again - Protestant must support the national liberation movement as the only strategy for defeating Imperialism. Hasn't worked since 1970 - won't work in the future.



The level of state repression and descrimination now is but a fraction of what it was before the Troubles swung into first gear.
For the simple reason that the paramilitary campaign is now in cold-storage. Repression wasn't defeated by the campaign of republican paramilitaries - it was increased because of the campaign of republican paramilitaries and only eased as the British govenrment became confident that paramilitarism was not going to re-ignite its campaign. British Imperialism would prefer not to use repression - propaganda etc. is far more 'efficient' than repression at exploiting the working class. It uses repression when it feels obliged to.



Republicanism has a degree of respect found in working class communities in the south
Utter nonsense - between 1970-1995 there was little support for republicanism in working class communities in the South. Even areas where a large number of Northern nationalists re-located in the early 1970's could did not generate support for republicans. Dundalk is an example - PSF had little public support among northern and southern workers right throughout the 1970's and 1980's (indeed what little support for republicanism that existed went to OSF).

Shannon is another example - one third of the population of the town were originally from the North yet SF rarely got into double figures in terms of membership of the local cumman and could barely muster enough votes to get a candidate elected to the local town council. Similarly with the IRSP in Shannon - a handful of supporters with Makowski getting elected to the town council on the basis of her grunt work in the town rather than her political affiliations. Indeed she only got elected to the county council when she dropped all references to republicanism.

Limerick had both IRSP and Peoples Democracy branches in the 1970's and 1980's - yet candidates for both could only muster a couple of hundred votes in any election. Gilligan and Harrington did eventually get elected on the backs of the anti-water charges campaign only to promptly shift significantly to the right and start doing deals with anyone who would listen. And there are numerous other examples of things like this from other areas.

What little support republicanism did have during this period was largely confined to rural areas and of the more right-wing variety.

It would be correct to point out that republicans did generate some support inmore disadvantaged areas during anti-drugs campaigns - but the campaigns had limited effect and the support disappated as quickly as it emerged - eventually ending up with some communities actually criticising some republican activity.

However the single most telling point in relation to republican support among the working class has to be in relation to the trade unions. Left republicans have been singularly incapable of generating any support within the trade union movement. There has been the odd occasion where a member of SF has popped up in a prominent position within a trade union but this has usually been as an ardent supporter of the right-wing bureaucracy.


I believe that the war that was fought against imperialism in the previous 40 years was tactically fought wrong and that there was not enough working class mobilisation behind the likes of the INLA.
What was wrong was not how the tactic was implemented - but the tactic itself. Paramilitary activity has no role what-so-ever to play in promoting class consciousness in a highly industrialised and urbanised society. Mass guerilla campaigns can have a role in grossly under-developed peasant based societies - but the individual terror strategy like that of paramilitaries in the North is counter-productive.



In the foreseeable future such a sectarian conflict is not likely.
Even the likes of the UVF are attempting to steer their supporters away from sectarian conflict at the moment.
The only real thread to a sectarian incident igniting the tinder box again is from the UDA, the rabid dogs must be kept on their chain.
Sectarian conflict is not the most likely perspective in the short to medium term - but it is inevitable at a certain point in time unless a united workers movement is built and sectarianism is forced into the background. But Northern society is currently more divided in sectarian terms than it ever has been in the past. There is an ongoing, un-relenting turf-war going on between the two communities, driven by sectarians on both sides and fueled by the rising Catholic population. It is only a matter of time before the underlying conflict once again bursts out into the open. When it does I suspect that the IRSM will enter the conflict on one side of the sectarian divide.



In this given context I of course oppose a return to armed conflict as it is not tactically viable and I fully support the mobilisation of the working class.
But again - the question is - on what basis should this mobilisation occur?


But it is of pivitol importance in what context this mobilisation takes place as I consider the stance of the CWI as tragically flawed in its constant capitulation to Loyalism as it helps Loyalism foster a legitimacy it craves among the Left.
The CWI has never capitulated to loyalism - the CWI has consistantly defended protestant and catholic workers from the sectarians and the paramilitaries on both sides. The fact that the CWI does not and has not supported the campaign of individual terror by republican paramilitaries does not automatically mean captiulation to loyalism. The attitude of left republicans is republicanism good - loyalism bad - the attitude of the CWI is republicanism bad - loyalism bad - socialism good.

The only way of defeating British Imperialism is by building a revolutionary movement based on the working class in both communities organised around common goals and aggitating on common issues - not by organising in one community, focussing on 'national liberation' and telling the other one we are right and you have to come and join us.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Would you want an 'Irish Socialist Republic' opposed to a 'British Soviet Republic' let's say?
Yes


Not that I think there will ever be a 'British Soviet Republic' but if you think there will be an 'Irish Socialist Republic' then a 'British Soviet Republic' must also be a possibility, mustn't it?
actually NO - and the reason being - Britain is an Imperialist construct - Britain has to be dismantled in order for socialism to emerge. It is an impossibility to have a 'British Soviet Republic'. It is possible to have a socialist federation based on socialist countries on these islands - but not anything that is refered to as 'British'.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I would caricature the positions as follows:
1 - advocate working class unity
2 - world revolution
3 - SOCIALISM!

"Watch the first step - it's a doozy!" Cheers, comrade. :thumbup1:

[here for the revolution]

NO! NO! NO!

The last thing we want is more power for the catholic church, or any of the protestant churches. To quote Connolly yet again...

"The day has passed for patching up the capitalist system; it must go. And in the work of abolishing it the Catholic and the Protestant, the Catholic and the Jew, the Catholic and the Freethinker, the Catholic and the Buddhist, the Catholic and the Mahometan will co-operate together, knowing no rivalry but the rivalry of endeavour toward an end beneficial to all. For, as we have said elsewhere, socialism is neither Protestant nor Catholic, Christian nor Freethinker, Buddhist, Mahometan, nor Jew; it is only Human. We of the socialist working class realise that as we suffer together we must work together that we may enjoy together."

But personely I think what Ireland really needs is more atheism.
No pasarán, I completely agree with the idea that Ireland needs more atheism, of course I do. And I certainly don't want any more power in the hands of the Catholic church. I would certainly love for a socialist push for a united Ireland free of religious bias to occur.
My personal belief with the Irish question, and maybe I am simply being a pessimist here :P, is that there is no scope (at the moment) for a grass roots socialist war on capitalism which will lead to a united Ireland where neither religion oppresses the other. This is simply because in Ireland your politics and religion are so heavily intertwined and prominently characteristic of each individual which obstructs the ability for Catholic and Protestant working side by side for a common cause. In this sense, I see that a united Ireland must be achieved before socialism can be strived for. However I am hungover and not making a lot of sense :P. Basically, I would love for a united struggle in Ireland to occur achieving socialism, but as of now, I can't see that happening whilst this age old dilemma divides the people...it's entirely plausible that my belief is not the most harmonious option for socialism in Ireland, yet to me it is the only way I can see it being achieved at this moment in time.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, because if you're anwering yes to what I was asking then you should be expelled from this forum.

'If a revolution happened in the UK and its governemnt was overthrown, and a Soviet Republic like the Russian Soviet Republic was established, would your 'Irish Socialist Republic' militarily oppose it, for example in the same way that Poland opposed the Russian Soviet Republic, ie through invasion?"



actually NO - and the reason being - Britain is an Imperialist construct - Britain has to be dismantled in order for socialism to emerge. It is an impossibility to have a 'British Soviet Republic'. It is possible to have a socialist federation based on socialist countries on these islands - but not anything that is refered to as 'British'.

Russia was as much an empire as the UK, it had an awful lot of territories joined on, but they still had a revolution there. Why not Britain? It seems to me far more likely that a revolution would begin in the UK than Ireland, and develop much faster, given the relative sizes of the proletariat in the two states.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Maybe I'm not making myself clear,
No - you are not making yourself clear.



Russia was as much an empire as the UK, it had an awful lot of territories joined on, but they still had a revolution there. Why not Britain? It seems to me far more likely that a revolution would begin in the UK than Ireland, and develop much faster, given the relative sizes of the proletariat in the two states.
The Soviet Union was not an empire - empires again are a construct of imperialism. The Soviet Union did not engage in Imperialist activities.

The revolution in Russia dismantled the Russian Empire as an integral part of the process of revolution. In the early stages of the Soviet Union association was between socialist states on a free and voluntary basis - 'The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics'. This was and would be completely different to Britain - your question above was nonsense - as I pointed out previously - it is not possible to have a British Soviet Republic - one of teh tasks of a socialist revolution in Britain would be the dismantling of Britain (i.e. the dismantling of British Imperialism). You can have a federation comprising of a socialist England, Scotland and Wales - but not a British Soviet Republic.

Finally - there is no basis for your suggestion that a socialist revolution is more likely in Britain - simply because of the relative sizes of the proletariat. Indeed it could well be argued that it is more likely in Ireland because of the weakness of the native bourgeoisie.

[Blake's Baby]

1 - the revolution happened in the Russian Empire, not the Soviet Union.

2 - the Soviet Union was too imperialist, you ask Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, the Baltic states...

3 - I know it's not possible to have a 'British Soviet Republic' and I know it's not possible to have an 'Irish Socialist Republic' either. Why don't you?

[Jolly Red Giant]

1 - the revolution happened in the Russian Empire, not the Soviet Union.
Yet you were talking about a 'British Soviet Republic' - make up your mind about the points you are arguing?


2 - the Soviet Union was too imperialist, you ask Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, the Baltic states...
The Soviet Union was not 'imperialistic' - it did not engage in imperialistic expansion - invasions occurred during the second world war in order to drive out the nazis - and post WW2 to prevent workers revolution.


3 - I know it's not possible to have a 'British Soviet Republic'
Then why do you repeatedly argue the point?


and I know it's not possible to have an 'Irish Socialist Republic' either.
You will definitely have to explain that one?

[Blake's Baby]

You believe there can be an 'Irish Socialist Republic' (like the Polish republic established with German backing in 1918) not me. You don't believe there can be a 'British Soviet Republic' even though there was a revolution in the Russian Empire which established a 'Russian Soviet Republic' - the two cases seem reasonably analogous to me, but not you. I can't believe I have to explain your own theory to you.

If you don't believe that the USSR was imperialist, but conversely do believe that it invaded countries to prevent workers' revolution, even I can't explain what's going on your head and believe me I'm pretty clever. Without a basic agreement that tyhe USSR was an imperialist state then there's little point continuing to debate with you as you don't understand what imperialism is. This probably explains why you can't grasp why the idea of an 'Irish Socialist Republic' is nonsense.

How would the revolution happen in Ireland but not in Britain? Because the bourgeoisie in Ireland is weaker? Then you're in the wrong country mate, you need to move to the Congo or Somalia, I think they've nearly fallen apart, must be 'ripe for revolution' eh? So what that they don't have a significant proletariat, who needs workers for a workers' revolution (or even god forbid a 'workers' state')?

So in your peasant-socialist Irish utopia that somehow achieves class-consciousness of its historic role (even though the proletariat in Ireland is a smaller proportion of the population than in Britain, and the proletariat in Britain must grasp hold of 'the national question' and all its pitfalls in a way that Ireland doesn't), where the agricultural proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie stand in for the working class, that produces revolutionary minorities who identify with the working class, overthrow the Republic and the UK government's control of the north, but leaves the UK otherwise untouched except in so far as it inspires the Welsh and Cornish and Scots (but not the English for some reason) to revolt against Britain; and then collectivises.... agriculture and call-centres, and precious little industry except Harland and Wolff, there is one fundamental question that remains.

Who would bankroll your little green and gold Cuba? America? Germany? Good plan, get rid of the Brits and hock yourselves to another (stronger) imperialist power. Venezuela? Lybia? Iran? Meh; probably not. An idependant 'socialist' Ireland is a nonsense. Ireland can only be 'socialist' if the rest of Europe (including Britain) are also in the throes of revolution. If Ireland attempted a 'scoialist' revolution on its own, Britain, the rest of the EU, America and Nato would crush it in minutes.

If your goal is socialism fight for socialism; if your goal is re-unifification, fight for re-unification. But don't pretend that it has anything to do with Marxism or the workers' movement.



EDIT: I've been sent a message by LeninBalls, possibly in order to spare my blushes, asking why I consider Ireland a peasant state.

I don't, I consider it a state where the peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and agricultural proletariat have a much greater weight than in other places eg UK, Germany.

The revolution will come from the urban proletariat not the countryside, for very good historical reasons. The agricultural proletaraiat and some members of the peasantry (not just in Ireland but all over the world) will I'm surte make contributions to the revolution but it will be pushed furthest fastest by the urban proletariat.

BUT: and it's a massive but; the proletariat in Ireland is tiny. The Republic has a working class of around a million, million and a half, the overwhelming majority in Dublin. But London has a bigger population than the whole of Ireland north and south, and the majority of London's population is workers. 5 conurbations in Britain have bigger populations than Dublin, and Belfast (second city on the island of Ireland) is ionly the UK's 15th biggest city.

In Ireland the agricultural sector employs 8%, in the UK 2%. So the agricultural sector four times larger than the UK's as a proportion. Conversely, the working class is smaller, both in proportional and in real terms.

For all these reasons I think that Ireland will not be leading the workers' revolution.

[Jolly Red Giant]

You believe there can be an 'Irish Socialist Republic' (like the Polish republic established with German backing in 1918) not me. You don't believe there can be a 'British Soviet Republic' even though there was a revolution in the Russian Empire which established a 'Russian Soviet Republic' - the two cases seem reasonably analogous to me, but not you. I can't believe I have to explain your own theory to you.
I am going to be polite with my answer - but before you post on here again you need to go and read some of the basic works of Marxism or find someone who has read a few books and have a chat with them. You appear to have absolutely no understanding of the basics of Marxism.

I will address two simple issues -


If you don't believe that the USSR was imperialist, but conversely do believe that it invaded countries to prevent workers' revolution, even I can't explain what's going on your head and believe me I'm pretty clever. Without a basic agreement that tyhe USSR was an imperialist state then there's little point continuing to debate with you as you don't understand what imperialism is.
To quote Lenin - 'Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism' - The USSR was not capitalist - it was a deformed workers state operating on the basis of a planned economy. It did not have a bourgeois class and did not engage in imperialist actions. In every incidence where the USSR invaded a country it was to prevent the working class taking power and posing a threat to the bureaucratic clique in the USSR and its satellites.



EDIT: I've been sent a message by LeninBalls, possibly in order to spare my blushes, asking why I consider Ireland a peasant state.

I don't, I consider it a state where the peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and agricultural proletariat have a much greater weight than in other places eg UK, Germany.
Ireland has not had a peasantry since the begining of the twentieth century - zilch, nada, none - not a single peasant in over 100 years.


the proletariat in Ireland is tiny.
from June 2009
Total population of Ireland over 15 years of age = 3,523,800
Total labour force = 2,203,000 (63% of the over 15 population)
Total retired = 317,000
Total students = 360,000
Total stay at home parents = 538,000
This comprises 96% of the entire population over 15 years of age. The percentage of bourgeois and petty bourgeois is significantly smaller than most other European countries because of the way the Irish economy has developed over the past 30 years.

To suggest that Ireland has a tiny proletariat is nothing short of demonstrating complete stupidity.



In Ireland the agricultural sector employs 8%, in the UK 2%. So the agricultural sector four times larger than the UK's as a proportion. Conversely, the working class is smaller, both in proportional and in real terms.
The proportion of the agricultural sector would only be relevent if it comprised significantly more than 50% of the population.


For all these reasons I think that Ireland will not be leading the workers' revolution.
Ireland was ripe for and stood on the presipice of socialist revolution 90 years ago, never mind today.

[Paul Cockshott]

Who would bankroll your little green and gold Cuba? America? Germany? Good plan, get rid of the Brits and hock yourselves to another (stronger) imperialist power. Venezuela? Lybia? Iran? Meh; probably not. An idependant 'socialist' Ireland is a nonsense. Ireland can only be 'socialist' if the rest of Europe (including Britain) are also in the throes of revolution. If Ireland attempted a 'scoialist' revolution on its own, Britain, the rest of the EU, America and Nato would crush it in minutes.

If your goal is socialism fight for socialism; if your goal is re-unifification, fight for re-unification. But don't pretend that it has anything to do with Marxism or the workers' movement.

JRG you failed to respond to the key strategic point he makes above.

[Kléber]

JRG you failed to respond to the key strategic point he makes above.
It's not a point at all, imagine where we'd be if the US Republicans had been afraid to abolish slavery because the European cotton-purchasers might send their armies and "crush it in minutes," or if the Lenin and Trotsky had been afraid of the Allied imperialists' tanks and aircraft and agreed with Plekhanov and Martov to postpone the workers' revolution until it could be done throughout the entire Europe simultaneously. Hell, if imperialists can just crush anything "in minutes," Ireland shouldn't even exist.


The Soviet Union did not engage in Imperialist activities.
Eh, this is debatable. Forced migrations of peoples, removal of industry from Eastern Europe to Russia as "war reparations," the Brezhnev doctine etc. all smack of imperialism.

[Jolly Red Giant]

JRG you failed to respond to the key strategic point he makes above.
Actually - I didn't - I answered that question in my initial post - Blake's Baby just didn't read it (or understand it).



Imperialism can only be defeated by united working class action moving towards socialist revolution on a national and international basis. This is not to say (as has been suggested on here) that the Irish working class have to wait for the British working class to defeat British Imperialism - but it would be inevitable that as the Irish working class move into a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary phase of consciousness, that such a movement would have a considerable impact on the working class in England, Scotland and Wales. Similarly, such movements in Britain would have an enormous impact and influence on the workers movement on this island. The same would apply on the impact and influence on workers movements in other European countries. We have no way of predicting how events will pan out.


Blake's Baby adopts an extremely mechanical approach to this question. There is no reading of responses and no attempt at understanding the points being made. The assumption is that a socialist revolution would occur in Ireland in complete isolation from the rest of the world. As I outlined above any revolutionary period that would open up in Ireland would undoubtedly be part of a wider generalised movement over part of or the whole of Europe.

Blake's Baby assumes that if a revolution occurred in Ireland but didn't occur in Britain first, it would be crushed by British and US Imperialism and the EU. But again this is a wholly mechanical approach. This argument completely ignores the potential of the working class in these countries to engage in solidarity action with the Irish revolution as part of their own revolutionary processes and completely cut the legs from under any attempts by imperialism to crush the revolution. And it would not be a case of a repeat of the Russian civil war - the industrialised working class is significantly more powerful today and the modes of communication are significantly more advanced. Whereas it took weeks (if at all) for the Bolsheviks to communicate with workers in other countries during the civil war - nowdays it would seconds.

As I said above - Blake's Baby needs a serious course in the ABC's of Marxism.

[GreenCommunism]

In every incidence where the USSR invaded a country it was to prevent the working class taking power and posing a threat to the bureaucratic clique in the USSR and its satellites.

i'm not sure capitalist restauration is the working class taking power. or feudal restoration when it comes to afghanistan.

i think his point is that if all nations didn't declare independance when the soviet union existed, why would britain split up too. i think your counter-argument is that nationalism in britain is stronger or so. stalin was more nationalistic than lenin, i think lenin said something negative about stalin's attitude toward georgia and other nationalism.

[Blake's Baby]

... I answered that question in my initial post - Blake's Baby just didn't read it (or understand it)...

Actually, I read and understood it, but then ignored it because I don't think that you believe it. If there is a revolution simultaneously in all European countries, then 'Ireland' will be abolished anyway, along 'Britain' 'France' 'Germany' and all other bourgeois nations.



...
Blake's Baby adopts an extremely mechanical approach to this question. There is no reading of responses and no attempt at understanding the points being made. The assumption is that a socialist revolution would occur in Ireland in complete isolation from the rest of the world. As I outlined above any revolutionary period that would open up in Ireland would undoubtedly be part of a wider generalised movement over part of or the whole of Europe.

Blake's Baby assumes that if a revolution occurred in Ireland but didn't occur in Britain first, it would be crushed by British and US Imperialism and the EU. But again this is a wholly mechanical approach. This argument completely ignores the potential of the working class in these countries to engage in solidarity action with the Irish revolution as part of their own revolutionary processes and completely cut the legs from under any attempts by imperialism to crush the revolution...

Yes, this is entirely what I believe - that world revolution not national revolution is the future for humanity.



...

And it would not be a case of a repeat of the Russian civil war - the industrialised working class is significantly more powerful today and the modes of communication are significantly more advanced. Whereas it took weeks (if at all) for the Bolsheviks to communicate with workers in other countries during the civil war - nowdays it would seconds.

As I said above - Blake's Baby needs a serious course in the ABC's of Marxism.

Why thank you comrade.

I 'm not sure Marxism is such a great help in understanding why you're fixating on the notion of a revolutionary united Ireland when in actuality, you've already admitted that a revolutionary situation in Britain could influence the situation in Ireland (so at least in theory you accept that there could be a faster and further revolutionary development in the UK), that a revolution in Ireland is dependent on the general European and world situation (which I completely agree with) and that you're not capable of predicting the future (which I also agree with - not just you of course, I'm not claiming I can).

What we can do is look at probablitites. Has there ever been an isolated revolution that has implimented socialism? No. So there's no reason to believe that this one will. Was the leadership of the revolution in Russia taken by the urban working class? Yes, therefore the leadership of the next revolution is likely to be taken by the urban working class, probably not in a small relatively peripheral country with a larger than average agricultural sector and only one large city, but in one of the larger more industrialised European countries, eg UK or Germany.

So in the end, I reject the notion of 'Irish revolution' in favour of world revolution, and therefore reject Irish particularism; there is no necessity in my conception to unite Ireland before, during or after the revolution - before it can only strengthen the bourgeoisie, during it's a distraction from the revolution itself and after it would be a retrograde step when all other countries are being abolished.

[Jolly Red Giant]

i'm not sure capitalist restauration is the working class taking power. or feudal restoration when it comes to afghanistan.
USSR interventions in places like Hungary, Czechslovakia etc had nothing to do with capitalist resoration.


i think his point is that if all nations didn't declare independance when the soviet union existed, why would britain split up too. i think your counter-argument is that nationalism in britain is stronger or so. stalin was more nationalistic than lenin, i think lenin said something negative about stalin's attitude toward georgia and other nationalism.
The facts do not back up your assertion - the Baltic states declared independence after the fall of the Russian Empire as did the Ukraine. Lenin supported the rights of nationas to self-determination. The clique around Stalin was responsible for the removal of rights of minority peoples.

My counter argument on Britain is quite simple and has nothing to do with the strength of nationalism. Britain is an imperialist construct. The British Empire has been pretty much dismantled over the past 90 years but British Imperialism continues to exist. A 'British Soviet Republic' is incapable of being established - you cannot establish socialism while maintaining the structure of imperialism. In order for socialism to be established in England, Scotland or Wales then British imperialism must be defeated and removed from the scene of history, the masses of these countries must be given the right to self-determination and afterwards if the masses choose to engage in a voluntary federation of socialist states then that will be constructed. But the establishment of a 'British Soviet Republic' is a contradiction and something that is not possible to create.


Actually, I read and understood it, but then ignored it because I don't think that you believe it.
So you read it, understood it (?) and then ignored it because you didn't think I believed what I wrote - I must say that is the most novel approach to debating an issue that I have seen in a while.


If there is a revolution simultaneously in all European countries, then 'Ireland' will be abolished anyway, along 'Britain' 'France' 'Germany' and all other bourgeois nations.
It is extremely unlikely that a socialist revolution will occur simultaneously on a European wide basis - think of it in terms of the current situation. All European countries (and particularly Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland) are undergoing the same economic collapse and the same scale of austerity - yet the class struggle is on a completely different level in each country. Greece is in turmoil - yet Ireland has a bigger debt problem and has introduced harsher austerity yet there has been little more than a whimper from the working class.

The revolutionary process does not work like you are suggesting. The revolutionary process is fraught with contradictions - it will advance and retreat over a significant period of time - in some countries the workers movement will suffer minor setbacks, in others it will suffer severe setbacks - in some countries it will be victorious in others it will be defeated.

The entire basis of your argument is that a socialist revolution in Ireland would be crushed without a simultaneous revolution on a European wide basis. This is nonsense - it takes no account of the balance of class forces on a European wide basis - it takes no account of the attitude of the working class in countries where there has yet to be a revolution and it takes no account of whether the ruling classes would have the ability or where-with-all to attempt to crush a revolution.

Revolutions do not occur to a given timeframe - they do not follow a laid out plan - they do not follow a defined pathway. The key for Marxists is to recognise when the revolutionary situation has matured to effectively carry out a socialist revolution - going to early (July days in 1917) could spell disaster - going too late, a lost opportunity.



Yes, this is entirely what I believe - that world revolution not national revolution is the future for humanity.
I do not konw a single socialist that does not believe this statement - but that is not the argument here.



I 'm not sure Marxism is such a great help in understanding why you're fixating on the notion of a revolutionary united Ireland when in actuality, you've already admitted that a revolutionary situation in Britain could influence the situation in Ireland (so at least in theory you accept that there could be a faster and further revolutionary development in the UK), that a revolution in Ireland is dependent on the general European and world situation (which I completely agree with) and that you're not capable of predicting the future (which I also agree with - not just you of course, I'm not claiming I can).
Again you are missing the point - the class struggle develops at a different pace in different countries - it does not follow a linear path. While the workers movement can be advancing in one country, it can be retreating in another. The class struggle does not occur in isolation - the revolutionary situation can and does. The timeframe for revolution is not indefinite - it emerges, matures, exists for a period and then dies.


What we can do is look at probablitites. Has there ever been an isolated revolution that has implimented socialism? No.
We - actually yes - the Russian revolution. Again - don't forget that Lenin was the first to outline that the Russian working class required revolution in an advanced capitalist country - but the revolution in Russia did occur in isolation - it was nearly two years before a revolutionary situation had matured in Germany.

A socialist revolution in a backward semi-feudal country could not carry through its tasks without assistance - but that dis not and does not mean that a revolution cannot occur in isolation.


, therefore the leadership of the next revolution is likely to be taken by the urban working class, probably not in a small relatively peripheral country with a larger than average agricultural sector and only one large city, but in one of the larger more industrialised European countries, eg UK or Germany.
I do not know where you get your information about Ireland - it is a highly advanced capitalist country, with an overwhelming majority of the population working class - it has a significantly higher proportion of workers organised in trade unions than most other countries in the world. It has a tremendous revolutionary tradition and a tradition of highly combative workers movement. To follow the logic of your arguments - revolutionaries in Ireland should pack up shop, sit down in front of the TV, wait for workers in Germany or France or Britain to organise a revolution and then they will graciously grant us socialism.


So in the end, I reject the notion of 'Irish revolution' in favour of world revolution, and therefore reject Irish particularism; there is no necessity in my conception to unite Ireland before, during or after the revolution - before it can only strengthen the bourgeoisie, during it's a distraction from the revolution itself and after it would be a retrograde step when all other countries are being abolished.
You reject the notion of revolution - period - your arguments are a recipe for paralysis - your notion of world revolution a recipe for wishful thinking. Every journey starts with one step and every owrld revolution must start with revolution in a single country. It could be Germany, but it could just as easily be Ireland or Nepal.

Whether you or I like it or not, nationalism is embedded in the consciousness of the working class. The working classes of individual nations have a right to exercise self-determination. In the case of Ireland that self-determination will only be fulfilled as part of a socialist revolution. Why? - because the establishment of a nation state is a task of the bourgeois revolution, but when the bourgeois are incapable of carrying out that task it falls on the workers movement to complete that task as part of socialist revolution.

Again - go and get a couple of books on basic Marxism (and I am not saying that to be smart - but as some friendly advice) - read about the Russian Revolution and read what Lenin had to say about the rights of nations to self-determination.

[Blake's Baby]

Have done, and I've read what Stalin had to say too, and I've read Luxemburg and I've even read Connolly.

And of all of them, Luxemburg is the one who most critically examines the national question; and I'll say to you what I was saying to others pages ago; please read Luxemburg on the national question, and study Poland in 1918, and think about how the situation there relates to Ireland.

[Kléber]

USSR interventions in places like Hungary, Czechslovakia etc had nothing to do with capitalist resoration.
No, but the Soviet bureaucracy didn't think in terms of crushing the workers when they intervened, they just wanted to preserve the subordinate political&economic relationship of those countries to the USSR. I think you could call that imperialist.


Have done, and I've read what Stalin had to say too, and I've read Luxemburg and I've even read Connolly.

And of all of them, Luxemburg is the one who most critically examines the national question; and I'll say to you what I was saying to others pages ago; please read Luxemburg on the national question, and study Poland in 1918, and think about how the situation there relates to Ireland.
She was so critical as to say that an independent Poland would never exist again and it was a "utopian fantasy."

[Jolly Red Giant]

No, but the Soviet bureaucracy didn't think in terms of crushing the workers when they intervened, they just wanted to preserve the subordinate political&economic relationship of those countries to the USSR. I think you could call that imperialist.

Yes they did - the bureaucracy was constantly in fear of the impact of the workers movement implementing genuine workers democracy. It terrified the bureaucracy more than any capitalist restoration. A genuine workers democracy would serve as a beacon for the workers of the Stalinist states and would also have threatened not just their privilaged rule but their physical existance as individuals.

[Blake's Baby]

...
She was so critical as to say that an independent Poland would never exist again and it was a "utopian fantasy."

Yes, and she was right. Poland was (somewhat unexpectedly) freed by Russia, supported by Germany, then backed by Britain and France, before being dismembered and fought over by Germany and Russia, occupied by both, then bankrolled again by Germany and the USA. At what point, exactly, was Poland 'independent' in the 20th century?

[Paul Cockshott]

Yes they did - the bureaucracy was constantly in fear of the impact of the workers movement implementing genuine workers democracy. It terrified the bureaucracy more than any capitalist restoration. A genuine workers democracy would serve as a beacon for the workers of the Stalinist states and would also have threatened not just their privilaged rule but their physical existance as individuals.


What you have there is your interpretation of the covert intentions of the Soviet Government, but can you give any historical data to indicate that there was any prospect of what you call 'genuine workers democracy' as opposed to a process of restoration of the market economy in the CSSR in 1968?

[Kléber]

Yes they did - the bureaucracy was constantly in fear of the impact of the workers movement implementing genuine workers democracy. It terrified the bureaucracy more than any capitalist restoration. A genuine workers democracy would serve as a beacon for the workers of the Stalinist states and would also have threatened not just their privilaged rule but their physical existance as individuals.
The actual deliberations of the Soviet bureaucrats under Khrushchev and Brezhnev are partly on the record and they weren't afraid of the situation evolving into a Trotskyist uprising, they were afraid of their counterparts in the subject states breaking off their unequal treaties with the Soviet Union and thus wrecking the international position of the parent nation. Rumors of contact with NATO freaked them out but I haven't seen any source that shows Khrushchev and co. so much as batted an eye about the formation of independent workers' councils in Hungary. The Hungarian, Czech, and Afghan Stalinists weren't going to unconsciously pull off a proletarian political revolution against themselves nor was there, despite worker unrest, a revolutionary workers' party in those countries in any position to take power.

If the Soviets hadn't moved into Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan what would have resulted would be a heterodox Stalinist regime like Yugoslavia, China or Albania. Even if the Soviet tank brigades were militarily defeated, there wouldn't automatically be a proletarian uprising without a Trotskyist party to consciously carry it out. When Napoleon failed to restore slavery in Haiti, the Haitians didn't overthrow the military caste, what emerged was a Bonapartist-style regime under Emperor Dessalines.

You are correct that the fact that the Soviets moved in and replaced their errant puppet leaders in order to maintain the Warsaw Pact was ultimately meant to maintain their privileged rule, but where did that privilege come from? The extraction of surplus value from the workers. How is crushing national independence movements on the periphery to ensure the extraction of surplus value by the metropole anything but imperialist?


Yes, and she was right. Poland was (somewhat unexpectedly) freed by Russia, supported by Germany, then backed by Britain and France, before being dismembered and fought over by Germany and Russia, occupied by both, then bankrolled again by Germany and the USA. At what point, exactly, was Poland 'independent' in the 20th century?
Unexpectedly? The Bolsheviks were pretty vocal about demanding the right of self-determination for oppressed peoples. It was the Russian Revolution, not the Great-Russian Imperialist Revolution.

Hence you could have an English and an Irish workers' republic side by side in a socialist federation, or either existing independently, but a "British" one would be an insult to the peoples historically oppressed by Empire.

As for Poland, the German bourgeoisie sponsored Irish independence too, so what? The survival of nations like Haiti, the First French Republic, or the Russian Soviet Republic, against not just one but multiple imperialist armies, proves that it is possible for a revolution in one country to take on multiple imperialisms and win without a simultaneous worldwide revolution. The Irish Revolution did not transition to a socialist revolution in spite of the fact that it trounced British imperialism, not because more radical measures would have invited an imperialist apocalypse.

[No pasarán]

funny how this has gone a wee bit off topic now...