Dawn Purvis quits the Progressive Unionist Party.

[Palingenisis]

Although this follows the recent murder of someone in East Belfast by people close to or in the UVF I cant help feeling that this was probably coming for a long time and the killing of Bobby Moffet was the straw that broke the camels back. Dawn Purvis is probably one of the most impressive figures in Irish politics today.


"She said she was leaving because the PUP was "severely restricted because of its relationship with the Ulster Volunteer Force"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/10222663.stm

[Jolly Red Giant]

Although this follows the recent murder of someone in East Belfast by people close to or in the UVF I cant help feeling that this was probably coming for a long time and the killing of Bobby Moffet was the straw that broke the camels back. Dawn Purvis is probably one of the most impressive figures in Irish politics today.


"She said she was leaving because the PUP was "severely restricted because of its relationship with the Ulster Volunteer Force"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/10222663.stm
Wow - what happened - backing the (ex-)leader of the PUP - had an epiphany or something :blushing:

[Red Conall]

Dawn Purvis is probably one of the most impressive figures in Irish politics today.

Please elaborate.

[Palingenisis]

Please elaborate.

Her commitment to her community and working class women in general in the occupied six counties.

[Red Conall]

Her commitment to her community and working class women in general in the occupied six counties.

I admit to not knowing a great deal about her or her work but there's nothing "impressive" about being a member (and certainly not a leader) of the PUP; a reactionary organisation which, as Purvis complains, is interlinked with the UVF. I see in other threads and posts you have rightly condemned CWI's former association with sectarian murderer Bill Hutchinson and the PUP so why this admiration for Purvis? Is it because she has managed to get to the level of leadership in what is I suspect a more than usual (for advanced capitalist societies) male chauvinistic political culture?

[Red Conall]

I wonder will the PUP now head towards oblivion like the UDP before it.

[IrishWorker]

Dont let Dawn Purvis or the UVF/PUP fool anyone into thinking she is anything else but an apologist for a counter revolutionary reactionary religious fundamentalist shower of scum.
This "resignation" is damage limitation 101, the UVF are on the verge of losing its voice in the assembly so no doubt over the course of many meetings with the leadership of the UVF over the last few days they collectivity took the decision to let Purvis stand in the next round of assembly elections as an Independent so she could keep her seat and portray herself as the untainted voice of Loyalism.
Fuck her and fuck the UVF.

[Red Conall]

Dont let Dawn Purvis or the UVF/PUP fool anyone into thinking she is anything else but an apologist for a counter revolutionary reactionary religious fundamentalist shower of scum. This "resignation" is damage limitation 101, the UVF are on the verge of losing its voice in the assembly so no doubt over the course of many meetings with the leadership of the UVF over the last few days they collectivity took the decision to let Purvis stand in the next round of assembly elections as an Independent so she could keep her seat and portray herself as the untainted voice of Loyalism.
Fuck her and fuck the UVF.

It certainly does smack of damage limitation given the fact she's resigning in protest without actually pointing the finger of blame directly at the butchers of the UVF. I also find it difficult to accept that she only now realises that a political project such as the PUP, however reactionary, will inevitably be impeded by a rump of criminals who have done nothing throughout their entire existence except terrorise the Catholic population in service of imperialism.

[Palingenisis]

Dont let Dawn Purvis or the UVF/PUP fool anyone into thinking she is anything else but an apologist for a counter revolutionary reactionary religious fundamentalist shower of scum.
.

A religious fundamentalist shower of scum who outside of the IRSP are the only party in the occupied six counties to support abortion rights?

Im not a fan at all of loyalism or unionism but the fact is that many working class people are enthralled into reactionary idealolgy but by the fact of being working class they come into antagonism with the system. Their stepping away even slightly from old reactionary certainities provided by Big House Unionism should be welcomed.

[IrishWorker]

A religious fundamentalist shower of scum who outside of the IRSP are the only party in the occupied six counties to support abortion rights?

Im not a fan at all of loyalism or unionism but the fact is that many working class people are enthralled into reactionary idealolgy but by the fact of being working class they come into antagonism with the system. Their stepping away even slightly from old reactionary certainities provided by Big House Unionism should be welcomed.

Sure dose yer man Obama not support the abortion as well? Dose that make him one of us?
They are scum chara they are on the same level as the contras they are Ireland's counter revolution.

[Palingenisis]

Sure dose yer man Obama not support the abortion as well? Dose that make him one of us?
They are scum chara they are on the same level as the contras they are Ireland's counter revolution.

I see your point but context is everything and though Obama is Imperialist scum he isnt religious fundamentalist scum...The fact that they have that policy in a society such as Ireland shows some measure of thinking outside of the box.

And your right...The death squads that broke down the spirit of the revolution through the randomn slaughter of any old "Taig" should not be forgotten. Still at the end of the day we have to least try to win as many of the Loyalist/Unionist community over for our own sake aswell as theirs.

[Red Conall]

A religious fundamentalist shower of scum who outside of the IRSP are the only party in the occupied six counties to support abortion rights?

The IRSP and the PUP are not the only political parties in NI who support the legalisation of abortion. Where did you get that idea? But you are of course right about the PUP/UVF not being religious fundamentalists.


Im not a fan at all of loyalism or unionism but the fact is that many working class people are enthralled into reactionary idealolgy but by the fact of being working class they come into antagonism with the system.Their stepping away even slightly from old reactionary certainities provided by Big House Unionism should be welcomed.Reaching out to the likes of the PUP/UVF would inevitably involve compromising any genuinely revolutionary position on the Irish Question. The reality is only a minority of Protestant workers will be won to a revolutionary perspective as things stand at the moment. That may change, and I for one sincerely hope it does, but Protestant workers do identify with Loyalism for a reason and that reason is the relative privilege they enjoy (both historically and to this very day) at the expense of their Catholic neighbours. Before reformist-types hop all over what I just typed I suggest they take a look at the findings of the recent Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency's report on "multiple deprivation".

[Palingenisis]

[QUOTE=Red Conall;1764313]The IRSP and the PUP are not the only political parties in NI who support the legalisation of abortion. Where did you get that idea? But you are of course right about the PUP/UVF not being religious fundamentalists.[QUOTE]

I meant parties of any significance.

[Red Conall]

I meant parties of any significance.

I don't think the IRSP could be said to be any more significant than CWI, Socialist Workers Party or Workers' Party of Ireland in Northern Ireland.

[Soldier of life]

PUP/UVF, the same boys and girls the Socialist Party cosy up to. Pervis stated 'I believe there are elements within the organisation, that have absolutely no interest in politics or the future of their party and no interest in the PUP.'

The UVF are nothing but right wing gangsters. These are the people the SP develop links with and yet dismiss the Irish Republican Socialist Party as sectarian nationalists. what an absolute farce, this recent murder is just another reminder of the ugly face of loyalism, one which it is convenient for the SP to ignore, after all they did call for people to vote for the GFA, another sectarian settlement.

I believe in the Connolly/Costello approach to unionism/loyalism, that it must not be appeased even for short term gains on social issues, but must be constantly challenged, any engagement with them should be soley on the topic of a 32 county socialist republic. It's time the left in Ireland stopped the hypocrisy, paying lip-service to national liberation struggles across the globe yet in their own back yard cosying up to right wing pro-imperialists and dismissing republican socialists in the same manner the capitalist media does. Populist nonsense.

[Red Conall]

It's time the left in Ireland stopped the hypocrisy, paying lip-service to national liberation struggles across the globe yet in their own back yard cosying up to right wing pro-imperialists and dismissing republican socialists in the same manner the capitalist media does.

Indeed. Joe Higgins once even compared the PIRA to the SS in the Dáil following the brutal murder of Robert McCartney, with no heed payed to the fact that he was parroting the butchers of Afghanistan and Iraq and their sock-puppets in Dublin. I have my own (considerable) disagreements with Irish nationalists but they should nevertheless be defended (even the CIRA & RIRA) when in conflict with the interests of imperialism, its defeat being of utmost importance. I think you'll find that the positions of organisations like CWI or the Cliffites in relation to struggles for self-determination elsewhere are consistently appalling.

[Demogorgon]

It is tiresome to see the usual demented lunatics go over the same sad Irish Nationalism. It would have been far better if Ireland had never been divided and it would be best if the majority of people in Northern Ireland wished to rejoin the rest of Ireland but it was, and for the time being at least, they don't so simply accept the reality and work within it. Telling 60% of the Northern Irish working class that they can have no part in their own liberation is the height of stupidity. The reason for engaging with the PUP was it presented a leftist alternative for working class protestants, or would you prefer they kept voting for the DUP?

Anyway as for the resignation of Purvis, the PUP was trying to be two things, a party for left wing Unionists and the political voice of the UVF. Dawn Purvis becoming leader was a victory for the former, but it looks like it was only a short term one. The usual suspects here will celebrate this as it lets them keep up their fantasy that most workers in Northern Ireland are inherently reactionary, but for everyone else it is a real problem that the Unionist Community is once again, left without any visible mainstream progressive voice.

[Jolly Red Giant]

These are the people the SP develop links with and yet dismiss the Irish Republican Socialist Party as sectarian nationalists.
I really am getting fed up of these rabid sectarian claims about the CWI - the CWI have never developed any links with the PUP. Indeed over the past 40 years the CWI has had significantly more contact with members of the IRSP than it ever has had with members the PUP. Personally I have participated in numerous campaigns with members of the IRSP over the past 30 years (although their actual value to the campaigns is a different story). The fact that the CWI dared to speak to some members of the PUP and debated with Billy Hutchinson (at a time when the potential existed for some PUP members to move to the left) - we have some how committed a mortal sin.

Be clear - the CWI regards the PUP as a sectarian loyalist organisation and always have - the CWI regards the IRSP as a sectarian republican organisation and always have. The PUP have degenerated into a simple and straightforward loyalist party losing most of its left rhetoric since its inception. The IRSM has abandoned paramilitarism and if members of the IRSM want to discuss left wing politics or co-operation in non-sectarian campaigns then the CWI are willing and able to engage in those discussions - but the IRSM has a long way to go to throw off the history of its previous activities.


this recent murder is just another reminder of the ugly face of loyalism, one which it is convenient for the SP to ignore, after all they did call for people to vote for the GFA, another sectarian settlement.
Another dose or rabid sectarian nonsense


I believe in the Connolly/Costello approach to unionism/loyalism, that it must not be appeased even for short term gains on social issues, but must be constantly challenged, any engagement with them should be soley on the topic of a 32 county socialist republic.
You wouldn't know what Marxism was if it jumped up and bit you on the arse and you would probably try and shoot Connolly if you saw him walking down the street.


It's time the left in Ireland stopped the hypocrisy, paying lip-service to national liberation struggles across the globe yet in their own back yard cosying up to right wing pro-imperialists and dismissing republican socialists in the same manner the capitalist media does. Populist nonsense.
It time for those who have dragged a generation of working class kids down the blind alley of individual terror to wake up and smell the shite they have been shovelling for decades. The so-called 'national liberation' struggle is a recipie for disaster for the working class on this island and those who think it has any role to play in the future of left politics in Ireland should shut up shop and go home put their feet up and play their anti-imperialist shoot-em-ups on the X-box.

Sorry for the rant - but I really am f*cking sick of this kind of rubbish.

[Red Conall]

It is tiresome to see the usual demented lunatics go over the same sad Irish Nationalism.

Not nearly as tiresome as some know-it-all reformist dishing out meaningless insults. I'm not a "demented lunatic" nor am I a nationalist - I'm a proletarian internationalist.


It would have been far better if Ireland had never been divided and it would be best if the majority of people in Northern Ireland wished to rejoin the rest of Ireland but it was, and for the time being at least, they don't so simply accept the reality and work within it.

Translation: ditch the democratic demand of self-determination in order to appease more backward sections of the working class.


Telling 60% of the Northern Irish working class that they can have no part in their own liberation is the height of stupidity.

I never actually said that. Telling Irish workers that they have no business seeking self-determination because it runs contrary to the interests of British imperialism and its supporters is more than the "height of stupidity": it's goddamn reactionary.


The reason for engaging with the PUP was it presented a leftist alternative for working class protestants, or would you prefer they kept voting for the DUP?

A choice between two reactionary parties is no choice at all. Should workers in the United States vote for the Democrats because they're the 'lesser evil'? I think not, but I can see how a reformist interested in appeasing reactionary sections of the working class in order to 'win them over' would.


Anyway as for the resignation of Purvis, the PUP was trying to be two things, a party for left wing Unionists and the political voice of the UVF. Dawn Purvis becoming leader was a victory for the former, but it looks like it was only a short term one. The usual suspects here will celebrate this as it lets them keep up their fantasy that most workers in Northern Ireland are inherently reactionary, but for everyone else it is a real problem that the Unionist Community is once again, left without any visible mainstream progressive voice.

"left wing Unionist" - now there's a contradiction in terms! "Mainstream progressive voice" - do you even pretend to be a revolutionary socialist?

[Demogorgon]

do you even pretend to be a revolutionary socialist?
Do you? All I saw in that post was repeated nationalism, sectarianism and a closing statement opposing being herd in the mainstream. That ties in well with the rest of what you said though, you want to be irrelevant. For those for whom it is not a silly game however, that doesn't strike me as a very revolutionary position.

[Crux]

Indeed. Joe Higgins once even compared the PIRA to the SS in the Dáil following the brutal murder of Robert McCartney, with no heed payed to the fact that he was parroting the butchers of Afghanistan and Iraq and their sock-puppets in Dublin. I have my own (considerable) disagreements with Irish nationalists but they should nevertheless be defended (even the CIRA & RIRA) when in conflict with the interests of imperialism, its defeat being of utmost importance. I think you'll find that the positions of organisations like CWI or the Cliffites in relation to struggles for self-determination elsewhere are consistently appalling.
Well, maybe appalling to the likes of you comrade. I for one am glad we never jumped on the left-republican ship, given the miserable state of republicanism for the past 30 or so years and the absolute dead end it delivers for the working class. All these claims of "cozying up" to the PUP I can't possible take seriously, it is my understanding we had discussion with quite a few different organizations over the years.

[Palingenisis]

I know this is going to sound left Communist but at the end of the Unionist workers are still workers and there is a contradiction between them and Capital that will keep rearing its head. Sectarianism has insured that wages in the occupied six counties are the lowest in the whole of the "UK". While we cant just pretend the occupation doesnt exist like the trendy left does we also have to engage with the loyalist working class as best we can and not just write them off. Remember also that the more we communicate and reach out to them the less the Brits will be able to use them as their foot soldiers also.

[Red Conall]

Do you?

I do more than just pretend. :p


All I saw in that post was repeated nationalism, sectarianism and a closing statement opposing being herd in the mainstream. That ties in well with the rest of what you said though, you want to be irrelevant. For those for whom it is not a silly game however, that doesn't strike me as a very revolutionary position.What "repeated nationalism, sectarianism and a closing statement opposing being he[a]rd in the mainstream"? I support the right of oppressed nations to self-determination - that is not the same thing as being a nationalist and it is a position that is entirely consistent with that of Marx, Lenin & Trotsky and one, I might add, that is as relevant today as it was in their time. I won't even dignify the suggestion that I am a sectarian with a response other than to say that it is a term ever so liberally bandied about by reformists to deflect attention from their reprehensible views, especially on a topic such as this. As for my alleged desire to remain outside of the "mainstream" and "irrelevant": what I actually objected to was loyalism* finding a political voice in the mainstream which as far as I'm concerned is perfectly reasonable.

*loyalist paramilitaries.

[Soldier of life]

Jolly Red Giant,
I really am getting fed up of these rabid sectarian claims about the CWI - the CWI have never developed any links with the PUP. Indeed over the past 40 years the CWI has had significantly more contact with members of the IRSP than it ever has had with members the PUP. Personally I have participated in numerous campaigns with members of the IRSP over the past 30 years (although their actual value to the campaigns is a different story). The fact that the CWI dared to speak to some members of the PUP and debated with Billy Hutchinson (at a time when the potential existed for some PUP members to move to the left) - we have some how committed a mortal sin.

What do you mean 'dared to speak' and 'debated' with Hutchinson, ye went on a speaking tour with him presenting him as a socialist representative of the protestant working class, that is pandering to loyalism plain and simple no matter how you would like to dress it up. Hutchinson is a right-wing sectarian murderer...but fair play for 'debating' him while bringing him on a speaking tour presenting him as a leftist:rolleyes:


Be clear - the CWI regards the PUP as a sectarian loyalist organisation and always have - the CWI regards the IRSP as a sectarian republican organisation and always have. The PUP have degenerated into a simple and straightforward loyalist party losing most of its left rhetoric since its inception. The IRSM has abandoned paramilitarism and if members of the IRSM want to discuss left wing politics or co-operation in non-sectarian campaigns then the CWI are willing and able to engage in those discussions - but the IRSM has a long way to go to throw off the history of its previous activities.

Rubbish. The IRSP is in no way sectarian, just because the IRSP won't try and appease sectarian right wing murderers doesn't make us sectarian. The IRSP stands for a secular socialist republic and the INLA has even had a protestant chief of staff who came from a loyalist family background, some sectarians:rolleyes: All you have on the IRSM is what you've read in the gutter press, shows the mindset of those 'revolutionaries' in the socialist party.




Another dose or rabid sectarian nonsense

Please tell me what exactly was sectarian there...please I'd love you to.



You wouldn't know what Marxism was if it jumped up and bit you on the arse and you would probably try and shoot Connolly if you saw him walking down the street.

That is just bizarre. It about sums up the standard of your posts though, based on assumptions, utterly baseless and indeed infantile.



It time for those who have dragged a generation of working class kids down the blind alley of individual terror to wake up and smell the shite they have been shovelling for decades.

And what, go on speaking tours with loyalists sectarian killers? Please. And I would not term legitimate anti-imperialist action as 'individual terror', even if carried out by a conspiratorial group. But then again I won't attempt to apply in a dogmatic fashion a document written a century ago in a completely different context without taking into account the prevailing objective conditions that rule the day.



The so-called 'national liberation' struggle is a recipie for disaster for the working class on this island and those who think it has any role to play in the future of left politics in Ireland should shut up shop and go home put their feet up and play their anti-imperialist shoot-em-ups on the X-box.

What an absolutely ridiculous post. First the terminology you employed, the 'so-called' national liberation struggle, with the latter being put into inverted commas by your good self. That is frankly ridiculous, and it just shows the SP up for what they are...they are happy to appease loyalism and pro-imperialist right wing elements in the hope of gaining some favour, yet totally disregard the progressive role republicanism has to play in Ireland. You're politics serve the interests of imperialism. And just so you know, the IRA and the INLA actively engaged with imperialism, the ones with their feet up at home during that time were the trots, leave revolutionary action to those with balls, somehow I can't imagine the SP and SWP doing much gun running if a revolutionary situation were to develop in Ireland. The closest the SP will come to taking on imperialism/capitalism is indeed in a computer game, in the real world they are about a big a threat as a kitten in a tutu. Can't beat the trendy irish trots, not a bullet not a shower.

[Soldier of life]

Do you? All I saw in that post was repeated nationalism, sectarianism and a closing statement opposing being herd in the mainstream. That ties in well with the rest of what you said though, you want to be irrelevant. For those for whom it is not a silly game however, that doesn't strike me as a very revolutionary position.

What did he say that was sectarian?

Complete rubbish. Why do ye insist on using the term as a defence mechanism for your reformist rubbish? Please identify the sectarian part of his post, or any of mine.

[Palingenisis]

In terms of actually destorying capitalism in Ireland the SP have as much to offer as the WP did back in the 1980s. They are just filling the niche that the WP left of a "safe" far-left party that will never really challenge the system.

[Demogorgon]

I do more than just pretend. :p

What "repeated nationalism, sectarianism and a closing statement opposing being he[a]rd in the mainstream"? I support the right of oppressed nations to self-determination - that is not the same thing as being a nationalist and it is a position that is entirely consistent with that of Marx, Lenin & Trotsky and one, I might add, that is as relevant today as it was in their time. I won't even dignify the suggestion that I am a sectarian with a response other than to say that it is a term ever so liberally bandied about by reformists to deflect attention from their reprehensible views, especially on a topic such as this. As for my alleged desire to remain outside of the "mainstream" and "irrelevant": what I actually objected to was loyalism* finding a political voice in the mainstream which as far as I'm concerned is perfectly reasonable.

*loyalist paramilitaries.
It's a wonderful word, reformism. You can throw it around without having to consider what it means. Where the reformism in what I said might be, is beyond me, but hey it is just an empty insult, isn't it?

As for your sectarianism, you should take it rather more seriously than you have been doing. You have told us that sixty percent of the Northern Working Class is inherently reactionary because they do not share a preference for the same state you do. And the fact that you use it as an excuse to tread out the same old conflicts and count one set of gangsters as batter than another to the detriment of the cause of socialism is a problem.

[scarletghoul]

the Unionist Community is once again, left without any visible mainstream progressive voice.Unionism can never be progressive because it is imperialism. This is its essence. Your position is that of trying to turn imperialism to the left, when the task should be to destroy it.


The reason for engaging with the PUP was it presented a leftist alternative for working class protestants, or would you prefer they kept voting for the DUP?The 'leftist alternative' for working class protestants like anyone in Ireland is republicanism. It may not be particularly popular among protestant communities right now, but the reality is that anything short of republicanism is imperialism, and that is something none of us should support.


You have told us that sixty percent of the Northern Working Class is inherently reactionary because they do not share a preference for the same state you do. And the fact that you use it as an excuse to tread out the same old conflicts and count one set of gangsters as batter than another to the detriment of the cause of socialism is a problem. First, Red Conall is not being sectarian, he is taking the correct position in favour of liberation for Ireland and self-determination for the Irish people. The fact that you oppose this and smear it with the label sectarianism, like the British media does with the whole liberation struggle in the 6 counties, is not good.

Second, why are you talking about Northern Ireland like its a seperate country. Yes, there are more unionists than republicans there, but that is because those 6 counties were carved out of Ireland precisely for that purpose, so that there would be a comfortable protestant majority. In fact the Irish working class must always be considered in its entirity, and when it is it is clear that the vast majority of Irish workers are republicans. You are using the imperialists' map.

Third,Workers can hold reactionary views, they are not magical pure revolutionary fairies (if they were the world would be communist by now). No one in this thread has said that all protestant workers are 'inherently reactionary'; the fact is that many of them support unionism/imperialism and that IS inherently reactionary. Like many working class people the world over, they have reactionary views. Your position seems to be 'most of the working class in this area support imperialism, so we should support it too'. This is a highly reactionary and tailist position. (Most Israeli workers are in favour of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. This does not mean that they are correct, and it also does not mean that they are 'inherently' reactionary, it just means that they hold a highly reactionary imperialist view. If we translate your position to Israel, you would be giving support to the Labour-Zionists and condemning antiZionists for being antisemitic and opposing the Jewish working class ... )

etc

In other words you are unwittingly taking the imperialists' view on things, and attempting to impose a socialism within that framework, which is obviously wrong.

[Demogorgon]

We go through this time and again, the same rubbish put out by people unaware that we are in the twenty first century. First of all those that claim that British Policy is still motivated by imperialism always have a hard job explaining it as they never manage to pin down exactly how Britain benefits from this relationship. Different British Governments since the seventies have had different priorities but what is clear from all of them is that Northern Ireland is a problem they would rather be without. The simple fact is the cost to the British Government to maintain Northern Ireland is substantially more than it receives in taxes and from the perspective of business first of all Northern Ireland is less productive than most parts of the British Isles and secondly it is expensive for businesses to have to deal with two different markets with two different sets of tax rules on one fairly small island.

It might be easy to make lazy claims about imperialism, but they do not stand up to scrutiny. The only beneficiary of the Union these days is the Government of the Republic of Ireland. So why is Ireland still divided? The reason is that it would be impossible to reintegrate Northern Ireland against the will of the people there.

That's where we come to your argument about Ireland being seen as an indivisible whole. Well we might like it to be, but it isn't. Partition has led to the fact that the two parts are separate political entities. Claims that this is not the case betray nationalism as they claim that states are somehow natural or just political boundaries rather than all being arbitrary lines. To the reactionary-such as yourself-it is all well and good to claim that Ireland can be seen as a whole and any differences within it do not matter because you see people as naturally divided into different nationalities and national boundaries are self evident. To anyone who rejects nationalism however that makes no more sense than to say the entire British Isles should automatically be counted as one political unit (as was once claimed).

If any area is going to attempt to form a political unit, then it can only work if all groups within it agree. That is why Northern Ireland never worked. It was a divided society and the larger group used its weight to enforce its position on the smaller group. For anybody to imagine that the solution to the problem is to simply repeat an identical mistake, this time using numerical wait of nationalists to trample over Unionists without any concerns for their wishes is the hight of stupidity. Anyone who wants to see a United Ireland needs to try and convince Unionists, not simply coerce them into it.

But hey, it is more fun to be a latter day De Valera, isn't it?

[Soldier of life]

We go through this time and again, the same rubbish put out by people unaware that we are in the twenty first century. First of all those that claim that British Policy is still motivated by imperialism always have a hard job explaining it as they never manage to pin down exactly how Britain benefits from this relationship. Different British Governments since the seventies have had different priorities but what is clear from all of them is that Northern Ireland is a problem they would rather be without. The simple fact is the cost to the British Government to maintain Northern Ireland is substantially more than it receives in taxes and from the perspective of business first of all Northern Ireland is less productive than most parts of the British Isles and secondly it is expensive for businesses to have to deal with two different markets with two different sets of tax rules on one fairly small island.

It might be easy to make lazy claims about imperialism, but they do not stand up to scrutiny. The only beneficiary of the Union these days is the Government of the Republic of Ireland. So why is Ireland still divided? The reason is that it would be impossible to reintegrate Northern Ireland against the will of the people there.

That's where we come to your argument about Ireland being seen as an indivisible whole. Well we might like it to be, but it isn't. Partition has led to the fact that the two parts are separate political entities. Claims that this is not the case betray nationalism as they claim that states are somehow natural or just political boundaries rather than all being arbitrary lines. To the reactionary-such as yourself-it is all well and good to claim that Ireland can be seen as a whole and any differences within it do not matter because you see people as naturally divided into different nationalities and national boundaries are self evident. To anyone who rejects nationalism however that makes no more sense than to say the entire British Isles should automatically be counted as one political unit (as was once claimed).

If any area is going to attempt to form a political unit, then it can only work if all groups within it agree. That is why Northern Ireland never worked. It was a divided society and the larger group used its weight to enforce its position on the smaller group. For anybody to imagine that the solution to the problem is to simply repeat an identical mistake, this time using numerical wait of nationalists to trample over Unionists without any concerns for their wishes is the hight of stupidity. Anyone who wants to see a United Ireland needs to try and convince Unionists, not simply coerce them into it.

But hey, it is more fun to be a latter day De Valera, isn't it?

Of course we should try and convince workers to come round to republican socialism...but what happens in your view, when a significant minority of workers do not cast aside their reactionary views, should we hold off until every last one is a socialist? And should workers as a majority not wish to trample over capitalists? lol

[Demogorgon]

Of course we should try and convince workers to come round to republican socialism...but what happens in your view, when a significant minority of workers do not cast aside their reactionary views, should we hold off until every last one is a socialist? And should workers as a majority not wish to trample over capitalists? lol
I do not regard it as anymore reactionary to see oneself as being British than as being Irish. It would be better if people saw themselves as being people truth be told, but then again, I'm just a lefty like that. The point is that while there are a large number of people in Northern Ireland who do not see themselves as Irish or who for whatever reason want to be governed separately from the rest of Ireland, it is the height of stupidity to try and force them otherwise. There is a rather bloody political lesson in Ireland as to why that is a bad idea.

As for your last question, don't be silly. We are talking about a community divide here, not a class divide. Workers should desire the end of the class system for obvious reasons. But Unionists and Nationalists are not of separate classes and frankly it is tragic that circumstances prevent people from realising that. There is no difference between a British Worker and an Irish worker, no matter where they may reside.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The 'leftist alternative' for working class protestants like anyone in Ireland is republicanism. It may not be particularly popular among protestant communities right now, but the reality is that anything short of republicanism is imperialism, and that is something none of us should support.
Brilliant - republicanism is the only answer - not socialism - republicanism - says it all.



the vast majority of Irish workers are republicans.
The IRA never had the support of the Catholic working class in the North, never had any support among the Protestant working class and had minimal support among Southern Irish workers.


Workers can hold reactionary views,
Yes they can -


the fact is that many of them support unionism/imperialism and that IS inherently reactionary.
Similarly many of them support nationalism which, today, is also inherently reactionary - the question is do you try and win workers away from from support for reactionary ideologies or do you just dismiss them by simply stating - 'support us or else'

[Jolly Red Giant]

What do you mean 'dared to speak' and 'debated' with Hutchinson, ye went on a speaking tour with him presenting him as a socialist representative of the protestant working class,
How many meetings?

What was the title of this 'speaking tour'?

How was Hutcinson described on the poster?


The IRSP is in no way sectarian,
The INLA engaged in some of the most vicious sectarian attacks during the troubles and the IRSP supported them.


And just so you know, the IRA and the INLA actively engaged with imperialism,
The INLA and the IRA did nothing other than strengthen British Imperialism over the past 40 years and drive the Protestant working class into the arms of loyalism. Paramilitarism didn't have a single positive outcome and didn't go one inch towards achieving its objective. It wasted 30 years and hundreds of revolutionary youth.


the ones with their feet up at home during that time were the trots, leave revolutionary action to those with balls,
While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were shooting workers, the CWI was organising strike action by workers in opposition to these killings. While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were theatening workers the CWI was organising strike action by workers to defeat these threats. While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were telling strtiking workers not to trust their union reps because they were the wrong religion, the CWI was supporting strike action by workers irrespective of the religion of their shop stewards.


somehow I can't imagine the SP and SWP doing much gun running if a revolutionary situation were to develop in Ireland.
Are you talking about a revolutionary situation or a sectarian conflict? - and again you are assuming that 'gun-running' would be 1. necessary and 2. that you would find someone to provide guns to a workers revolution.


In terms of actually destorying capitalism in Ireland the SP have as much to offer as the WP did back in the 1980s. They are just filling the niche that the WP left of a "safe" far-left party that will never really challenge the system.
Says a cheerleader for a group who praised the Ulster Workers Council strike.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Indeed. Joe Higgins once even compared the PIRA to the SS in the Dáil following the brutal murder of Robert McCartney, with no heed payed to the fact that he was parroting the butchers of Afghanistan and Iraq and their sock-puppets in Dublin.
Just for clarification on this one -

Joe Higgins referred to the Short Strand unit of the IRA as the local community on the Short Strand referred to these nutjobs - and he was at the time demanding that Adams and Kelly, at a minimum, call a meeting in the Short Strand to support the local community and call on the murderers to surrender themselves (both of which they had been asked to do by the McCartney family and both of which they had refused to do).

[Palingenisis]

Says a cheerleader for a group who praised the Ulster Workers Council strike.

Their attitude to it was a bit more nuanced mo chara than you are trying to imply...They also defended the Eniskillen bomb.

And to say that the IRA only had minimal support in the 26 counties shows what kind of area you come from and who you hang out with.

[Crux]

Their attitude to it was a bit more nuanced mo chara than you are trying to imply...They also defended the Eniskillen bomb.

And to say that the IRA only had minimal support in the 26 counties shows what kind of area you come from and who you hang out with.
How is this not sectarian?

[Palingenisis]

How is this not sectarian?

Firstly the bomb's target was the militarary band and not the crowd...But the crowd were hardly innocent bystanders...They were at a rally celebrating British militarism. JollyRedGiant likes to protray the troubles as if Republicanism and Loyalism are basically the same and as a conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants...That is simply not true. It was and is a political conflict.

[Hoggy_RS]

How many meetings?

What was the title of this 'speaking tour'?

How was Hutcinson described on the poster?


The INLA engaged in some of the most vicious sectarian attacks during the troubles and the IRSP supported them.


The INLA and the IRA did nothing other than strengthen British Imperialism over the past 40 years and drive the Protestant working class into the arms of loyalism. Paramilitarism didn't have a single positive outcome and didn't go one inch towards achieving its objective. It wasted 30 years and hundreds of revolutionary youth.


While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were shooting workers, the CWI was organising strike action by workers in opposition to these killings. While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were theatening workers the CWI was organising strike action by workers to defeat these threats. While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were telling strtiking workers not to trust their union reps because they were the wrong religion, the CWI was supporting strike action by workers irrespective of the religion of their shop stewards.


Are you talking about a revolutionary situation or a sectarian conflict? - and again you are assuming that 'gun-running' would be 1. necessary and 2. that you would find someone to provide guns to a workers revolution.


Says a cheerleader for a group who praised the Ulster Workers Council strike.
In fairness, you and everyone else here is aware that the IRA had a huge amount of support in Catholic working class areas during the troubles....

Militant/SP/CWI have been around as long as the IRSM and the country hasn't exactly reached the brink of revolution through your tactics. Yet your so quick to point out the failures of others.

It's funny how you think pretty much everyone is sectarian, yet you have no problem with convicted sectarian killers Billy Hutchinson. I simply don't understand this position, is it impossible for you to see anyone but republicans as being sectarian(even though the great majority are not)?

[Palingenisis]

Id like to know what work the CWI did in Britian exposing the nature of British Imperialism in Ireland?

[Crux]

Firstly the bomb's target was the militarary band and not the crowd...But the crowd were hardly innocent bystanders...They were at a rally celebrating British militarism. JollyRedGiant likes to protray the troubles as if Republicanism and Loyalism are basically the same and as a conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants...That is simply not true. It was and is a political conflict.
You'd have to admit that republicanism as a movement has always had it's inherent contradictions, contradictions that, in my opinion, has not been resolved. You may think they can be resolved within republicanism. I do not.

Loyalism, for that matter obviously, also breeds an internal contradiction. I think the solution is to focus on genuine class solidarity, and in that context republicanism appears more and more an anachronism, not to mention the borrowed problems it has from stalinism with basically a two-step approach and an insufficient understanding of internationalism, particularly striking in so far that republicanism by and large is a nationalist movement. Even you would have to agree to that, looking at republicanism broadly in Ireland and say it's support groups in the US.

[Crux]

It's funny how you think pretty much everyone is sectarian, yet you have no problem with convicted sectarian killers Billy Hutchinson. I simply don't understand this position, is it impossible for you to see anyone but republicans as being sectarian(even though the great majority are not)? Yeah, the PUP-card again, boy when is that ever going to get old? I can assure you, during the 30 or so years of the CWI's presence in Ireland we have met with a number of different groups. Singling out the PUP is misleading to say the least. You may or may not be aware of this, but CWI originally had a more "left-republican outlook" (a harking back to this can be seen in the IMT's collaboration, or former collaboration with the IRSP), just like many on the left at the time (you could even call them the "trendy left") if you so will, but the comrades on the ground in Ireland, analyzed the situation and came to the correct conclusion, the para-military campaign of the IRA was going to be a dead end. 30 years on, can you say we were wrong?

[Soldier of life]

How many meetings?

What was the title of this 'speaking tour'?

How was Hutcinson described on the poster?Come on you, you expect me to know what was on the poster? The reality is having Hutchinson on tour in Ireland and Britain was not an attempt to 'debate him' like you want to portray, ye regarded him as an authentic representation of the protestant working class and a leftist with socialist potential, as you did the PUP overall. A prime example to back this up is Peter Hadden (Towards Division Not Peace, 2002) recounts the lost opportunity of the PUP not realising its socialist potential...that includes Billy you know. Billy of course is a double sectarian murderer...he shot two completely innocent people because they happened to be Catholic, and best yet, this supposed progressive with the potential for being a socialist comrade of the SP in a documentary by Peter Taylor, exclaimed that he has no regrets about why he went to jail. So in effect, the SP regard sectarian murderers who dont see anything wrong with sectarian murder as potential comrades...and to top it off Billy was a UVF rep for their decomissioning process. Ye were courting a sectarian UVF killer from a right-wing mob, ye are in no position to label anyone sectarian. Ye are a reformist, pro-imperialist and sectarian party, what sort of left party would try and help the political wing of the UVF with their programme:lol:.



The INLA engaged in some of the most vicious sectarian attacks during the troubles and the IRSP supported them.Give me one example where the IRSP supported sectarian attacks?



The INLA and the IRA did nothing other than strengthen British Imperialism over the past 40 yearsOh so now it is 'imperialism', I thought this was a so-called 'national liberation' struggle.


and drive the Protestant working class into the arms of loyalism.Yeah, a much better approach to militarily opposing right wing para's and British imperialism would be to court sectarian murderers, sound.


Paramilitarism didn't have a single positive outcome and didn't go one inch towards achieving its objective. It wasted 30 years and hundreds of revolutionary youth.I tend to agree that arms engaged in in that fashion were not going to free Ireland nor bring about socialism, as it relegated people to the sidelines of struggle. However, there was logic behind the war. Marching on the streets was tried in Derry in 1972 and we all know what happened, you could hardly blame working class people for taking up arms against imperialism in that context, they had endured decades of subjugation and severe exploitation , harrassment and murder, some I suppose wanted to take more direct action in protest at this than what the Sp would do..call a meeting that no-one would turn up to.



While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were shooting workers, the CWI was organising strike action by workers in opposition to these killings.LOL Yes, yes, just flippantly compares liberation fighters to right wing scum, fair play to you.


While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were theatening workers the CWI was organising strike action by workers to defeat these threats.Defeat these threats? What the hell are you talking about. We are talking about a country occupied by an imperialist super power and a bunch of right wing sectarian murderers, and you see the threat worth striking over as being a liberation army, absolutely farcical.


While paramilitaries (republican and loyalist) were telling strtiking workers not to trust their union reps because they were the wrong religion, the CWI was supporting strike action by workers irrespective of the religion of their shop stewards.Republicans are not sectarian dear, get over it. It is not sectarian to oppose the British army, like your party likes to say:rolleyes:


Are you talking about a revolutionary situation or a sectarian conflict? - and again you are assuming that 'gun-running' would be 1. necessary and 2. that you would find someone to provide guns to a workers revolution. Well of course guns would be necessary, or do you intend to over-throw capitalism by linking arms...ye probably do actually:lol:

And find someone to provide guns to a workers revolution? Well the INLA had no problem at all and had links with many revolutionary groups across the globe. And of course I'm talking about a revolutionary situation, republican socialism has nothing to do with sectarianism and you as usual are simply repeating the propaganda of the imperialist British by inferring Ireland is in some way a sectarian conflict. Sectarianism itself emanates from British imperialism, and while the SP are courting it by cosying up to the UVF/PUP and helping them with their programme, while their members refuse to condemn their own sectarian murderous actions, republican socialists will challenge the British occupation and capitalism in the pursuit of a secular socialist republic.

[Crux]

Are you being purposefully dishonest or do you just not see it yourself?

[Soldier of life]

Yeah, the PUP-card again, boy when is that ever going to get old? I can assure you, during the 30 or so years of the CWI's presence in Ireland we have met with a number of different groups. Singling out the PUP is misleading to say the least. You may or may not be aware of this, but CWI originally had a more "left-republican outlook" (a harking back to this can be seen in the IMT's collaboration, or former collaboration with the IRSP), just like many on the left at the time (you could even call them the "trendy left") if you so will, but the comrades on the ground in Ireland, analyzed the situation and came to the correct conclusion, the para-military campaign of the IRA was going to be a dead end. 30 years on, can you say we were wrong?

The IRSP came to that conclusion also, as the INLA was on a de facto ceasefire since 1994. However, our problem with you is not necessarily that you don't support arms as a tactic to be utilised, it is the fact that ye take an incredibly weak position in relation to loyalism and often paint republicism as some mirror image of loyalism. In your paper last year the SP called protesting against the Royal Irish Regiments triumphalist parade sectarian..that says it all..protesting against imperialist troops occupying you is sectarian. The SP try to appease loyalism and that's it, it is the wrong approach. The way the Sp mention the IRA/INLA in the same breath as loyalist right wing para's is just breathtaking, do ye not realise that one is progressive in that it opposes imperialism and in the INLA's case advocates socialism, and that the other is simply pro-imperialist right wing sectarian elements nostalgic for the days when the nationalists population was beaten into submission and exclusion. I, unlike the SP and like Marx, recognise that there is a difference between anti-imperialism and the nationalism of the oppressor.

[Crux]

The IRSP came to that conclusion also, as the INLA was on a de facto ceasefire since 1994. However, our problem with you is not necessarily that you don't support arms as a tactic to be utilised, it is the fact that ye take an incredibly weak position in relation to loyalism and often paint republicism as some mirror image of loyalism. In your paper last year the SP called protesting against the Royal Irish Regiments triumphalist parade sectarian..that says it all..protesting against imperialist troops occupying you is sectarian. The SP try to appease loyalism and that's it, it is the wrong approach. The way the Sp mention the IRA/INLA in the same breath as loyalist right wing para's is just breathtaking, do ye not realise that one is progressive in that it opposes imperialism and in the INLA's case advocates socialism, and that the other is simply pro-imperialist right wing sectarian elements nostalgic for the days when the nationalists population was beaten into submission and exclusion. I, unlike the SP and like Marx, recognise that there is a difference between anti-imperialism and the nationalism of the oppressor.
No, but we do not believe you can break the back of sectarianism through republicanism, no matter how left wing or socialist it is. I don't think that's appeasing loyalism, but I guess you've confused that with being non-republican. Frankly I think we need to be bolder when presenting our view on the national question, and explain it as clearly as possible and that will be the way to win the working class on both sides of the communal divide. Loyalism and republicanism might not be identical but they are dead ends none the less, and then it is our duty to point a way forward not depend on an irish anachronism, that to me at least seem to lead to two outcomes the complete sell-out like the Sinn Fein or the paramilitary dead-end of the RIRA/CIRA. Again, I do not think this can be resolved within irish republicanism itself. You may of course have another idea but I would say that the history of your organization seem to prove otherwise. I think the lessons of the insufficency of say arab nationalism (even in it's most left wing variety) in the middle east and tamil nationalism in sri lanka do well apply to northern ireland.

[Palingenisis]

Are you being purposefully dishonest or do you just not see it yourself?

Is anyone else a bit annoyed with having to tell Trots all the time that we are actually as we are and not as their deluded fantasies about Irish Republicans would have us be?

[Crux]

Is anyone else a bit annoyed with having to tell Trots all the time that we are actually as we are and not as their deluded fantasies about Irish Republicans would have us be?
Well, then please stop fulfilling my prejudices and get some intellectual honesty when debating. I am trying to keep it comradely, but sometimes you make that rather difficult.

[Jolly Red Giant]

JollyRedGiant likes to protray the troubles as if Republicanism and Loyalism are basically the same and as a conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants
When have I ever said that republicanism and loyalism are the same?

when have I ever said that the actions of republican paramilitaries and loyalist paramilitaries were on a par?


It was and is a political conflict.
Of course its a bloody political conflict - all conflicts are political. Political conflicts can also be sectarian conflicts.

It is amazing how many times I have to repeat myself on this issue and how often the supporters of republican paramilitarism ignore it and continue with their sectarian (in a political sense) rant.

So once again - Loyalist paramilitarism is right-wing reactionary and blatantly sectarian in character and action. Loyalist paramilitaries in the main targetted catholics because they were catholics and carried out (and continue to) sectarian attacks against catholics.

Republican paramilitarism emerged initially as a defence mechanism against loyalist attacks, grew into a strategy of carrying out terror (again in political terms) attacks on British troops and the RUC, then to including bombings against 'economic' targets and on occasion (usually at a time of heightened sectarian tension) to carrying out sectarian attacks.

The problem that the CWI has had consistantly with the paramilitary campaign of republicans (and this is not ignoring the role of British imperialism and loyalist paramilitaries) is that the strategy was not going to succeed, could not succeed and did not succeed in 1. defeating british imperialism 2. defeating loyalism 3. defeating sectarianism. The reality of the republican paramilitary campaign was that it 1. re-inforced British Imperialism 2. re-inforced loyalism and 3. re-inforced sectarianism in the North. It may never have been the intention - but that was and is the end result. And what is more, from the very begining of the republican paramilitary campaign, the CWI outlined that this would be the reality of the republican campaign and the outcome of this paramilitary campaign. The CWI also outlined that it was inevitable that the Republican paramilitary campaign (and overall strategy) would lead to 1. splits in republicanism (and the consequental feuds) and 2. compromises with capitalism and imperialism.

Now there will be those on here who will say that the INLA campaign was different to the IRA campaign and that the IRSM has not compromised with capitalism and imperialism (and therrefore the IRSM and republican socialism should be supported - and I am not going into the political arguments on this). Both of these arguments are correct. The INLA campaign was different - in some cases is was more vicious and and more sectarian than the IRA campaign. The primary reason why the IRSM has not compromised as the IRA is because the IRSM was significantly smaller than the IRA and SF and had considerable less influence in Catholic working class communities and therefore has not faced the same contradictions as the IRA and SF.

But the IRSM has had its own contradictions, its own internal splits, its own feuds etc. The reality for the IRSM is that the same tactics that they employed brought the same results. The fact that the INLA have decommissioned their weapons does not detract from this. The new strategy is not based on an analysis of the strategy of the past - the IRSM still defend the armed struggle - but based on reflecting pressure from the working class to end the military campaign. If a paramilitary campaign could defeat British Imperialism in Ireland then the CWI would support it - but it couldn't and we didn't.

As someone was daft emough to say earlier the only path for socialism is republicanism - going down that path is repeating the mistakes of history. Saying to the working class of the North that its 'our way or the highway' is telling them that they are destined to spend their futures mired in sectarian conflict.

[Jolly Red Giant]

In fairness, you and everyone else here is aware that the IRA had a huge amount of support in Catholic working class areas during the troubles....
Hoggy - the IRA never had huge support in Catholic working class areas - it always had a support of a minority (substantial - but a minority) of the Catholic working class - and much of this support was based on a fear of loyalist paramilitary attacks.


Militant/SP/CWI have been around as long as the IRSM and the country hasn't exactly reached the brink of revolution through your tactics. Yet your so quick to point out the failures of others.
The tactics of the CWI have never been tried - the armed struggle was the primary mode of struggle for over 30 years. How you expect an organisation with less than 100 people to fight against the sectarianism build up over a couple of centuries in the midst of a widespread paramilitary campaign from both sides, is beyond me. Since the begining of the troubles the CWI has managed to assist thousands of workers in struggle, build a substantial base in the trade union movement and succeeded in assisting trade unionists in cutting across the potential for widespread sectarian conflict at different period during the troubles.


It's funny how you think pretty much everyone is sectarian, yet you have no problem with convicted sectarian killers Billy Hutchinson. I simply don't understand this position, is it impossible for you to see anyone but republicans as being sectarian(even though the great majority are not)?
When I use the word sectarian on here I do it in a politcal context - not in a religious context. As for Hutchinson - who said we had no problem with him? Hutchinson was a sectarian murderer - the CWI objective was to investigate was there any potential for a section of the PUP to be won away from loyalism to socialism. The CWI would do the same if the situation arose with republican groups as well. Again like others - you attmept to distort the CWI position on sectarians - and having had contact with the CWI you really should know better.

[Soldier of life]

Hoggy - the IRA never had huge support in Catholic working class areas - it always had a support of a minority (substantial - but a minority) of the Catholic working class - and much of this support was based on a fear of loyalist paramilitary attacks.


The tactics of the CWI have never been tried - the armed struggle was the primary mode of struggle for over 30 years. How you expect an organisation with less than 100 people to fight against the sectarianism build up over a couple of centuries in the midst of a widespread paramilitary campaign from both sides, is beyond me. Since the begining of the troubles the CWI has managed to assist thousands of workers in struggle, build a substantial base in the trade union movement and succeeded in assisting trade unionists in cutting across the potential for widespread sectarian conflict at different period during the troubles.


When I use the word sectarian on here I do it in a politcal context - not in a religious context. As for Hutchinson - who said we had no problem with him? Hutchinson was a sectarian murderer - the CWI objective was to investigate was there any potential for a section of the PUP to be won away from loyalism to socialism. The CWI would do the same if the situation arose with republican groups as well. Again like others - you attmept to distort the CWI position on sectarians - and having had contact with the CWI you really should know better.

LOL I think it's actually contact with the SP that re-affirms his position on them, as it does mine. Like being told that protesting against the Royal irish Regiment was 'sectarian', echoing what was said in your party paper. What an absolute farce. And how about discussing at a meeting the possibility of attracting people who have left the DUP to come to the SP. What a joke, just stinks of the appeasement of reactionarys and imperialism, all the worse with you insisting that the INLA are big bad sectarian bogey men. If only ye treated the actual sectarians,loyalists, in this way ye might actually get somewhere.

[Crux]

LOL I think it's actually contact with the SP that re-affirms his position on them, as it does mine. Like being told that protesting against the Royal irish Regiment was 'sectarian', echoing what was said in your party paper. What an absolute farce. And how about discussing at a meeting the possibility of attracting people who have left the DUP to come to the SP. What a joke, just stinks of the appeasement of reactionarys and imperialism, all the worse with you insisting that the INLA are big bad sectarian bogey men. If only ye treated the actual sectarians,loyalists, in this way ye might actually get somewhere.
*sigh*
You're a fucking caricature. Take your childishness elsewhere.

[No pasarán]

*sigh*
You're a fucking caricature. Take your childishness elsewhere.

Do you realise how much of a hypocrite you sound here, resorting to an argument with no rebutle but a petty dismisal?

Also and this is an honest question, have you ever been to ulster and actually experinced what it is like to live there. I have a fair bit of experince of that part of the world and of its people and many of your comments seem to me you are simply towing the party line.

[Soldier of life]

*sigh*
You're a fucking caricature. Take your childishness elsewhere.


Eh, how about rebuking my points. There's nothing childish in pointing out the counter-revolutionary policies of the SP that seek to appease imperialism and its agents, the only thing that seems to be childish is your last post there, but well done with the swear word, badass.

[Crux]

Do you realise how much of a hypocrite you sound here, resorting to an argument with no rebutle but a petty dismisil?

Also and this is an honest question, have you ever been to ulster and actually experinced what it is like to live there. I have a fair bit of experince of that part of the world and of its people and many of your comments seem to me you are simply towing the party line.
There's nothing that hasn't been responded to already, just the same old trash.

Sorry, bro, I am a marxist not an impressionist. And yeah I tow the party line. But then again don't you?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Do you realise how much of a hypocrite you sound here, resorting to an argument with no rebutle but a petty dismisal?

He's damn right - he is a caricature - it is pointless arguing with someone who tosses out nonsense like confetti at a wedding in order to take sectarian swipes at the CWI - every single point tham him and other like you come up with have been answered on numerous occasions. The CWI does not support the 'armed struggle' - the CWI does not support the so-called 'national liberation movement' - suck it up and get over it.

[Crux]

He's damn right - he is a caricature - it is pointless arguing with someone who tosses out nonsense like confetti at a wedding in order to take sectarian swipes at the CWI - every single point tham him and other like you come up with have been answered on numerous occasions. The CWI does not support the 'armed struggle' - the CWI does not support the so-called 'national liberation movement' - suck it up and get over it.
And yet we're not loyalists in disguise. I understand that might be a complicated subject to grasp, but seriously, if we keep the discussion on a sensible level you just might. Just stop throwing nonsense about and debate the real questions.

[No pasarán]

There's nothing that hasn't been responded to already, just the same old trash.

I could say the same about many of your responses, though I still respect your right to express an opinion even when I completely disagree. I try not to recycle the arguments though which I feel you have done intentionally or otherwise.

Of course some of them above could apply to the republicans as much as the anti republicans.


Sorry, bro, I am a marxist not an impressionist. And yeah I tow the party line. But then again don't you?

I am not a member of the IRSM, I have some disagreements with some of their views. I just happen to aggree with some of their main points. Plus I have witnessed the respect and positive effects of some of their grassroots and community efforts first hand from the local community. As with Éirígí. Of course that was in areas where they had a strong local support anyways.

I hold some very different opinions to some of the other republicans on here, but we seem to be able to deal with that more respectfully.

[Soldier of life]

Ok lads, ye seem to be getting a bit hysterical so I will break down a couple points for you:

What is sectarian about protesting against the Royal Irish Regiment in Ireland, like your members and party paper proclaim?

Show me exactly how in the past the IRSP has supported sectarianism, the claim was made, now back it up.

All you can criticise the IRSM with is what ye read in the capitalist press, for christ sake, for those who don't live in Ireland the main protagonist of this gutter journalism is in fact a very close ally of Shell. That is the type of person the SP seem to like to echo when attacking the IRSM, it's certainly not from a political point of view.

So anyway, please answer the above questions.

[No pasarán]

He's damn right - he is a caricature - it is pointless arguing with someone who tosses out nonsense like confetti at a wedding in order to take sectarian swipes at the CWI - every single point tham him and other like you come up with have been answered on numerous occasions. The CWI does not support the 'armed struggle' - the CWI does not support the so-called 'national liberation movement' - suck it up and get over it.

Yet again, you respond by resorting by accussing us of being thick headed when you yourself are resorting to petty insults. I am well aware of your beliefs wether I they think they are wrong or not. Stop being so fucking condescending and actually debate like an adult. You actually have some good points at times, but some of them seem to get lost within personal jibes.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Why should we bother - it donesn't make a blind bit of difference to people like you.

maybe you could answer a couple of questions



What is sectarian about protesting against the Royal Irish Regiment in Ireland, like your members and party paper proclaim?
On what basis was the protest against the RIR organised?


Show me exactly how in the past the IRSP has supported sectarianism, the claim was made, now back it up.
Sow me exactly how the IRSP has supported the Protestant working class - claim was made that the IRSP was not sectarian - now back it up?


All you can criticise the IRSM with is what ye read in the capitalist press, for christ sake,
Actually all my criticism is based on personal experience - I don't read the gutter press.

For those who don't live in Ireland - the IRSM is the type of organisation that calls a ceasefire and then throws a sulk and threatens to abandon it when one of its members doesn't get released from jail (who was jailed for kidnapping a dentist and chopping off two of his fingers with a hammer and chisel - afterwards he said Now I'm going to chop him into bits and pieces and send fresh lumps of him every fucking day if I don't get my money fast).




So anyway, please answer the above questions.
What you said.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Stop being so fucking condescending and actually debate like an adult.
Stop being so bloody petty - I'll debate with anyone who wants to be serious about the debate - the last few pages of this thread have been nothing but a sectarian whinge-binge against the CWI - no debate, no substance - just whinging from internet warriors.

[No pasarán]

Stop being so bloody petty - I'll debate with anyone who wants to be serious about the debate - the last few pages of this thread have been nothing but a sectarian whinge-binge against the CWI - no debate, no substance - just whinging from internet warriors.

I could rise to your bait of your latest arrogant remarks with quite a few of my own petty swipes at you.. but I'm not gonna bother.

[The Grey Blur]

On the PUP/CWI question - socialists should debate with working-class members with reactionary views - are former or current members of the IRSP not ex-cons also? Possibly involved with sectarian attacks themselves? I'm not a member of the CWI but the howling of the republican babies on this board, and the hypocrisy, is shocking. Did you happen to know INLA ex-prisoners regularly engage and debate with ex-UVF and ex-UDA prisoners? Do you remember what Joe McCann said about UVF members he captured in the Lower Falls? "They're just working-class lads like me". Here's an interesting thing by the way - check out why Hutchinson joined the UVF, why Ervine did, why Billy Wright did. Specific instances of sectarian terror - I think for the first two it was Bloody Friday for Billy Wright it was the Kingsmill Massacre. You can't see the incredible paradox of ruling out any debate with these people when they're the product of a sectarian cycle which will continue unbroken until the end of time unless we work on a marxist basis to win them over? Also the CWI fair play to them broke any relations with the PUP completely when it became apparent they wouldn't move any further to the left. So let's drop that topic because it's a pathetic smear, completely illogical, and hypocritical as I've outlined above.

On the national question - as a Marxist the obvious answer is that the republican socialist struggle can only succeed on the basis of debating and engaging with the protestant working class. You can't bomb or coerce them into a United Ireland. Yes, they are/were relatively priveliged but it's a pathetic privelige - without the paint on the kerbs I promise that none of you could discern Andersontown from the Shankill Road, Ballymurphy from Branleigh estate, etc. The reason civil rights failed, the reason SF's strategy will fail, the reason the IRSP and Éirígí will fail unless they re-orientate themselves - is that on the basis of capitalism the national question is unresolvable - protestant workers will never ever be won to a United Ireland where the only equality will be an equality of unemployment, poor or nonexistent housing, etc. And of course they have justified fears considering the legacy of the Catholic church of religious persecution. So how do you allay these fears? In the tradition of Tone, Connolly, etc: by engaging and debating with the protestant working class. It won't be in the CWI's manner of "Ireland must wait for Labour" either. The cause of Ireland is the cause of labour, can only be won by labour - by uniting the protestant and catholic working classes for a worker's republic. That's done on the basis of strikes, resistance to privatisation, ex-prisoner's groups, in the universities and the workplaces, etc. And it also requires breaking from an insular outlook which so many of republicans demonstrate on these boards (which of course also requires a break from Stalinism, stageism, etc).

The Ta Power quote in my signature pretty much sums up my thoughts on the national question. So much ignorance on all sides in this debate.

[Soldier of life]

On what basis was the protest against the RIR organised?Protesting against imperialist soldiers occupying a country and denying it's people their right to self-determination. As well there was the wider context of a protest against their actions in Iraq etc.



Sow me exactly how the IRSP has supported the Protestant working class - claim was made that the IRSP was not sectarian - now back it up?So you aren't going to back up your claim and you are going to answer a question with a question because you can't back up your point, interesting. Well a recent example would be a housing march that took place in 2009 which the IRSP played a major role in organising, it was about the growing housing crisis in Belfast. The IRSP approached community groups from Protestant areas to march along side them against all housing disparities, and for proper affordable housing, not flats etc for people of all communities. The groups thanked the IRSP for the invite but declined. This small example shows the IRSP's sincerity in ameliorating the lot of all workers, no matter what religion, colour or creed. Another example is how the IRSM takes part in meetings with unionist/loyalist leaders, not to appease their politics, but to say this is exactly what we stand for and we are not going to hide that, but that we must work to keep sectarian tensions down. After the sectarian murder of Kevin McDaid representatives from a loyalist group in Derry arrived at the IRSP office in Derry to condemn the attack and make it clear they had nothing to do with it. Two examples for you there...notice how I answer your questions and you just try and deflect from those I ask by asking your own question, poor form really.



Actually all my criticism is based on personal experience - I don't read the gutter press.

For those who don't live in Ireland - the IRSM is the type of organisation that calls a ceasefire and then throws a sulk and threatens to abandon it when one of its members doesn't get released from jail (who was jailed for kidnapping a dentist and chopping off two of his fingers with a hammer and chisel - afterwards he said Now I'm going to chop him into bits and pieces and send fresh lumps of him every fucking day if I don't get my money fast).Firstly, Dessie was a qualifying prisoner under the terms of the GFA, the IRSM were right to protest at him not being released when he was a qualifying prisoner.
Actually, the IRSM condemned that action in relation to the dentist, and dessie was not a member of the IRSM at the time, he was a member of a smaller group, the Irish Revolutionary Brigade or something it was called. But anyways, he carried out an expropriation to try and gain funds for the struggle, sorry if it aggrivates your liberal sensibilities.


Now are you going to answer my questions or just going to deflect further?

[Red Conall]

Just for clarification on this one -

Joe Higgins referred to the Short Strand unit of the IRA as the local community on the Short Strand referred to these nutjobs - and he was at the time demanding that Adams and Kelly, at a minimum, call a meeting in the Short Strand to support the local community and call on the murderers to surrender themselves (both of which they had been asked to do by the McCartney family and both of which they had refused to do).

Just for clarification:


"Mr. Adams said this morning he has a problem going to the police. Does he have a problem in going to the Short Strand unit of the Provisional IRA—call it the local SS unit for short—and demanding that it present itself to justice?"

Perhaps I am unable to discern the true meaning in Higgins' words here but to me it looks like he's asking them to submit themselves to British imperialist "justice".

[Soldier of life]

On what basis was the protest against the RIR organised?

Protesting against imperialist soldiers occupying a country and denying it's people their right to self-determination. As well there was the wider context of a protest against their actions in Iraq etc.



Sow me exactly how the IRSP has supported the Protestant working class - claim was made that the IRSP was not sectarian - now back it up?

So you aren't going to back up your claim and you are going to answer a question with a question because you can't back up your point, interesting. Well a recent example would be a housing march that took place in 2009 which the IRSP played a major role in organising, it was about the growing housing crisis in the North. The IRSP approached community groups from Protestant areas to march along side them against all housing disparities, and for proper affordable housing, not flats etc for people of all communities. The groups thanked the IRSP for the invite but declined. This small example shows the IRSP's sincerity in ameliorating the lot of all workers, no matter what religion, colour or creed. Another example is how the IRSM takes part in meetings with unionist/loyalist leaders, not to appease their politics, but to say this is exactly what we stand for and we are not going to hide that, but that we must work to keep sectarian tensions down. After the sectarian murder of Kevin McDaid representatives from a loyalist group in Derry arrived at the IRSP office in Derry to condemn the attack and make it clear they had nothing to do with it. Two examples for you there...notice how I answer your questions and you just try and deflect from those I ask by asking your own question, poor form really.



Actually all my criticism is based on personal experience - I don't read the gutter press.

For those who don't live in Ireland - the IRSM is the type of organisation that calls a ceasefire and then throws a sulk and threatens to abandon it when one of its members doesn't get released from jail (who was jailed for kidnapping a dentist and chopping off two of his fingers with a hammer and chisel - afterwards he said Now I'm going to chop him into bits and pieces and send fresh lumps of him every fucking day if I don't get my money fast).

Firstly, Dessie was a qualifying prisoner under the terms of the GFA, the IRSM were right to protest at him not being released when he was a qualifying prisoner.
Actually, the IRSM condemned that action in relation to the dentist, and dessie was not a member of the IRSM at the time, he was a member of a smaller group, the Irish Revolutionary Brigade or something it was called. But anyways, he carried out an expropriation to try and gain funds for the struggle, sorry if it aggrivates your liberal sensibilities.


Now are you going to answer my questions or just going to deflect further?

[Red Conall]

CWI berates socialists and Irish nationalists for opposing homecoming parades for imperialist mercenaries and "Armed Forces Day" because this will supposedly antagonise Protestant workers yet it has no objection to people in Britain organising to oppose Pope Benedict XVI's planned visit to Great Britain in September (I personally oppose the scumbag's visit too, but I think the point I'm trying to make is clear enough)...

As for comments from some of the comrades on this thread about "Republicanism" or "Republican Socialism" being the only way forward for the liberation struggle in Ireland I must confess that I completely disagree. For a start, Republicanism is simply democratic, secular Irish nationalism. Since the early 20th century, however, socialistic rhetoric has been grafted onto this tradition (i.e. the idea that an independent Irish state would be by default an egalitarian, if not 'socialist', republic).

This approach is fundamentally flawed and I suspect the likes of James Connolly (without, I must admit, doing adequate research of his writings) mistook this approach for the working class carrying out the unfinished tasks of the democratic revolution independent of the bourgeois-nationalists and as the vanguard of the anti-imperialist movement. In other words I think on the surface the ideas of "Republican Socialism" (which I suppose are embodied by the IRSP & éirígí) seem to reject a theory of stages but underneath there lies the inherent contradiction of attempting to marry nationalism and socialism when the two are always pulling in opposite directions.

A question for IRSP & éirígí supporters/members: does either organisation have more detailed policy documents that aren't available online? If not why and are there any plans to start developing more substantial party political programmes?

[Crux]

CWI berates socialists and Irish nationalists for opposing homecoming parades for imperialist mercenaries and "Armed Forces Day" because this will supposedly antagonise Protestant workers yet it has no objection to people in Britain organising to oppose Pope Benedict XVI's planned visit to Great Britain in September (I personally oppose the scumbag's visit too, but I think the point I'm trying to make is clear enough)...
You really are trying to say you are a supporter of reactionary catholic nationlism? Or why else would you bring in the popes visit to fucking Britain? Am I misunderstanding you here? As for armed forces day, that is a tactical question. Tactics, I am sure, is something you have heard of.

[Red Conall]

You really are trying to say you are a supporter of reactionary catholic nationlism? Or why else would you bring in the popes visit to fucking Britain? Am I misunderstanding you here?

Yes I am a closet clericalist nationalist. :lol:

[Red Conall]

The point I was making comrade is that "Brits Out" is deemed to be bad but "No Pope Here" isn't.

[Crux]

The point I was making comrade is that "Brits Out" is deemed to be bad but "No Pope Here" isn't.
And you can't tell the difference of context?

[Red Conall]

And you can't tell the difference of context?

Are you saying the "context" of Northern Ireland is an excuse for refusing to oppose the British military occupation in Ireland and triumphalist parades celebrating imperialist ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq? I presume you are since that is, as far as I can tell, the position of CWI. Yet opposing a Papal visit which would be guaranteed to alienate many Catholics (despite the Vatican's lack of popularity at present) is kosher.

[Soldier of life]

And you can't tell the difference of context?


Please explain how protesting against the RIR is sectarian?

[Wanted Man]

As for armed forces day, that is a tactical question. Tactics, I am sure, is something you have heard of.

No, the CWI did not want to oppose it because it was supposedly "sectarian". At least, according to what Conall is saying here. Or is sectarianism simply a matter of tactics?

[Red Conall]

No, the CWI did not want to oppose it because it was supposedly "sectarian". At least, according to what Conall is saying here. Or is sectarianism simply a matter of tactics?

I am currently unable to post links comrade, but when I am I will provide the relevant article by CWI on the matter. They also condemned rioters in Dublin in February 2006 who prevented a Loyalist march through the city taking place as "sectarian", wrongly blamed the ruckus on Republican protesters and defended (once again) the "right" of reactionaries to march and assemble publicly.

[Soldier of life]

Can JRG or Majakovskij please explain how exactly protesting against the RIR march was sectarian. :rolleyes:

[Jolly Red Giant]

I will deal with some if the other stuff later if I have time

Protesting against imperialist soldiers occupying a country and denying it's people their right to self-determination. As well there was the wider context of a protest against their actions in Iraq etc.
Actually the primary focus of the protest, at least according to Sinn Fein who organised it, was opposition to the war and to protest the previous role of the RIR in the North. There was little focus on the issue of 'self-determination' although no doubt some smaller groups and individuals who coat-tailed the SF protest undoubtedly attempted to focus on it. By the way - most of the criticism of the CWi on this issue has been based on the fact that the CWI criticised the anti-RIR protest. What has never been pointd out is that the CWI also opposed the original parade for the RIR proposed by the DUP (and for the reasons outlined below).

In order to assess the CWI position it is necessary to look at the unfolding of events - this is part of a CWI statement at the time -

Despite the claims of some of the organisers, the one thing these protests were not about was the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to these wars, most especially to the war for oil in Iraq, cuts across the sectarian divide. The big anti war demonstrations have drawn support from both communities. There is also opposition to these wars among the soldiers and the families of the soldiers who have served there.

When unionist politicians on Belfast City Council made the original proposal to have a march and civic reception for the returning troops, they were well aware of the backlash this would provoke.

Sinn Fein, in calling a counter demonstration - initially to be along the same route and at the same time as the RIR parade - made sure from the outset that this would be a sectarian mobilisation. While condemning the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan their main complaint was that allowing the RIR to parade was an “affront to nationalists” given the sectarian history of that regiment during the Troubles.

That the RIR and its forerunner, the UDR, operated in a sectarian manner is beyond question. Sections - at the very least - of these regiments actively colluded with loyalist paramilitaries in the assassination of Catholics.

But so did the RUC or – again at the very least – sections of the RUC. Yet Sinn Fein are now signed up to co-operate with the PSNI, which is little more than the RUC under a new badge and title.

If there is one thing that the sectarian forces on both sides are adept at doing, it is taking genuinely felt grievances and emotions on such issues and giving them a sectarian twist.

The build up to 2 November was likewise conducted in a blatantly sectarian manner- by unionists and nationalists alike. As far as the major political parties were concerned this was a crude exercise in “divide and rule”, aimed at diverting attention away from what their ministers are doing - or not doing - in the Assembly.

The Northern Ireland Executive has now been in a state of suspended animation for over four months, unable to meet since June. Meanwhile working class people are being hit by the effects of the credit crunch and recession on the one side and the cuts being carried out by the Assembly on the other. There is a growing mood of disillusionment and anger at the failure of the power sharing administration to deliver on anything.

In using the RIR parade to switch the focus of attention away from all this and onto their sectarian political home ground, the main parties have shown us all why a peace process with them in charge will never succeed.

The DUP and Sinn Fein may eventually overcome their present differences and re-establish the Executive. If and when they do they will face the ongoing problem of how to hold onto a working class support base that is increasingly alienated by their right wing policies.

Their most likely response, as in the last few weeks, will be to whip up sectarianism, especially whenever elections approach. This time there were just going through the motions; doing enough to keep people divided but, at the same time, trying to make sure that the situation did not get out of hand and scupper the ongoing negotiations between them. So they marched their forces to the top of the hill and then marched them back down again.

But stoking up sectarian tensions in this way is a dangerous game. There is always the risk that they will be outflanked by the very sectarian forces they have helped unleash. For Sinn Fein there is the constant threat that dissident republicans groups like Eirigi will emerge as a challenge. Sinn Fein went ahead with their 2 November protest in part to prevent republicans attending a rival protest organised by Eirigi.
The DUP also have to look over their shoulders. If they move too far to accommodate Sinn Fein they run the risk of the TUV or some similar groups eating into their electoral base. The loyalist paramilitaries may not be the force they once were but they clearly attempted to mobilise for a confrontation on 2 November.

These events have exposed the contradiction inherent in a “peace process” that is based on uniting rival sectarian politicians on the premise and on the understanding that the community must remain divided.

The parties have to maintain and, from time to time, whip up sectarianism in order to hold onto the support that puts them in power. This in turn reduces their political wriggle room and narrows the ground for agreement between them. It also creates the conditions in which rival sectarian forces can emerge or re-emerge, further limiting their room to manoeuvre. This contradiction is likely to be the rock on which any agreement on power sharing is eventually likely to founder.

What happened in the lead up to, and on, 2 November was a warning to the working class movement. On the one hand, the economic crisis, alongside the right wing social and economic programme being jointly pursued by Sinn Fein and the DUP, creates an opportunity to build a united class movement of Catholic and Protestant workers. But, on the other hand, if such a movement is not built, it also provides an opportunity for sectarian forces to emerge and fill the vacuum that will open in working class areas.

The tensions stirred up by the RIR parade should serve as a wake up call to the trade union and working class movement. Instead of responding to the challenge, the trade union leaders have repeated the mistake they made through most of the Troubles and taken a position of complete silence on these events. Their only intervention in the ongoing sectarian political stalemate has been to plead with Sinn Fein and the DUP to get the Executive up and running.

The left within the trade union movement need to take an initiative, alongside genuine community activists and socialists, to break with this approach and to start to build a mass party that can represent the united interests of working class communities.

[Soldier of life]

What has this got to do with SF, they were just one of a number of groups there. And we are not debating Sf and their blatant hypocrisy. The Irsp were also protesting that day. eirigi also held quite a large protest that was well-publicised. Yet the SP's paper tarred all with the same brush. When I questioned two socialist party members about this after buying the paper, one agreed with me that it was wrong, the other tried to say something about one or two eirigi banners, and I said this makes no mention of one or tow banners, it calls the very act sectarian in content.

I agree that the political lifes blood of SF and the DUP is found in division of the working class. However, they were not the only ones out that day. And I would hardly call what the IRSP and eirigi did a 'counter demonstration' either. There was a homecoming march for imperialist murderers, the same army who continue to occupy Ireland and as the SP even admit a sectarian regiment. So in effect, SP called socialists like the IRSP and eirigi sectarian for protesting against sectarian imperialists who occupy their country and are involved in terrible atrocities in the middle east. I cannot fathom how that is sectarian, it's nonsensical. It's like the anarchists on the day who said they would hold a protest, and for people to come, as theirs was the only 'non-sectarian' demo. :lol:

[fionntan]

SF didn't organise the protest the 32CSM and the IRSP did. Eirigi had a different one as did SF. Ill not even get into the nonsense of people saying the Vol of the INLA were sectarian because it rubbish by trendy lefties.

[Red Conall]

Despite the claims of some of the organisers, the one thing these protests were not about was the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to these wars, most especially to the war for oil in Iraq, cuts across the sectarian divide. The big anti war demonstrations have drawn support from both communities. There is also opposition to these wars among the soldiers and the families of the soldiers who have served there.

When unionist politicians on Belfast City Council made the original proposal to have a march and civic reception for the returning troops, they were well aware of the backlash this would provoke.

Sinn Fein, in calling a counter demonstration - initially to be along the same route and at the same time as the RIR parade - made sure from the outset that this would be a sectarian mobilisation. While condemning the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan their main complaint was that allowing the RIR to parade was an “affront to nationalists” given the sectarian history of that regiment during the Troubles.

That the RIR and its forerunner, the UDR, operated in a sectarian manner is beyond question. Sections - at the very least - of these regiments actively colluded with loyalist paramilitaries in the assassination of Catholics.

But so did the RUC or – again at the very least – sections of the RUC. Yet Sinn Fein are now signed up to co-operate with the PSNI, which is little more than the RUC under a new badge and title.

If there is one thing that the sectarian forces on both sides are adept at doing, it is taking genuinely felt grievances and emotions on such issues and giving them a sectarian twist.

The build up to 2 November was likewise conducted in a blatantly sectarian manner- by unionists and nationalists alike. As far as the major political parties were concerned this was a crude exercise in “divide and rule”, aimed at diverting attention away from what their ministers are doing - or not doing - in the Assembly.

The Northern Ireland Executive has now been in a state of suspended animation for over four months, unable to meet since June. Meanwhile working class people are being hit by the effects of the credit crunch and recession on the one side and the cuts being carried out by the Assembly on the other. There is a growing mood of disillusionment and anger at the failure of the power sharing administration to deliver on anything.

In using the RIR parade to switch the focus of attention away from all this and onto their sectarian political home ground, the main parties have shown us all why a peace process with them in charge will never succeed.

The DUP and Sinn Fein may eventually overcome their present differences and re-establish the Executive. If and when they do they will face the ongoing problem of how to hold onto a working class support base that is increasingly alienated by their right wing policies.

Their most likely response, as in the last few weeks, will be to whip up sectarianism, especially whenever elections approach. This time there were just going through the motions; doing enough to keep people divided but, at the same time, trying to make sure that the situation did not get out of hand and scupper the ongoing negotiations between them. So they marched their forces to the top of the hill and then marched them back down again.

But stoking up sectarian tensions in this way is a dangerous game. There is always the risk that they will be outflanked by the very sectarian forces they have helped unleash. For Sinn Fein there is the constant threat that dissident republicans groups like Eirigi will emerge as a challenge. Sinn Fein went ahead with their 2 November protest in part to prevent republicans attending a rival protest organised by Eirigi.
The DUP also have to look over their shoulders. If they move too far to accommodate Sinn Fein they run the risk of the TUV or some similar groups eating into their electoral base. The loyalist paramilitaries may not be the force they once were but they clearly attempted to mobilise for a confrontation on 2 November.

These events have exposed the contradiction inherent in a “peace process” that is based on uniting rival sectarian politicians on the premise and on the understanding that the community must remain divided.

The parties have to maintain and, from time to time, whip up sectarianism in order to hold onto the support that puts them in power. This in turn reduces their political wriggle room and narrows the ground for agreement between them. It also creates the conditions in which rival sectarian forces can emerge or re-emerge, further limiting their room to manoeuvre. This contradiction is likely to be the rock on which any agreement on power sharing is eventually likely to founder.

What happened in the lead up to, and on, 2 November was a warning to the working class movement. On the one hand, the economic crisis, alongside the right wing social and economic programme being jointly pursued by Sinn Fein and the DUP, creates an opportunity to build a united class movement of Catholic and Protestant workers. But, on the other hand, if such a movement is not built, it also provides an opportunity for sectarian forces to emerge and fill the vacuum that will open in working class areas.

The tensions stirred up by the RIR parade should serve as a wake up call to the trade union and working class movement. Instead of responding to the challenge, the trade union leaders have repeated the mistake they made through most of the Troubles and taken a position of complete silence on these events. Their only intervention in the ongoing sectarian political stalemate has been to plead with Sinn Fein and the DUP to get the Executive up and running.

The left within the trade union movement need to take an initiative, alongside genuine community activists and socialists, to break with this approach and to start to build a mass party that can represent the united interests of working class communities.

That statement confirms everything that has been said about CWI and its attitude to the RIR march in this thread. What the statement says about the DUP, SF and all the bourgeois political parties is of course correct, but the IRSP, éirígí and even those poor sods in WSM were protesting against the parade for very different reasons and accusing them of "coat-tailing" Sinn Féin is just a baseless sectarian dig at those organisations. If CWI didn't approve of the various other demonstrations why didn't it organise its own?

[Jolly Red Giant]

That statement confirms everything that has been said about CWI and its attitude to the RIR march in this thread. What the statement says about the DUP, SF and all the bourgeois political parties is of course correct, but the IRSP, éirígí and even those poor sods in WSM were protesting against the parade for very different reasons and accusing them of "coat-tailing" Sinn Féin is just a baseless sectarian dig at those organisations. If CWI didn't approve of the various other demonstrations why didn't it organise its own?
Typical of left republicans - organise a protest with little consideration of the implications or consequences for the working class. Simply adopt a knee-jerk reaction to the sectarian antics of the DUP.

So what - various left republican groups organised their 'own' protests. The reaity is that no one - and I mean no one - saw any difference between the different anti-RIR protests. Not one left republican group protested against SF's approach - the entire focus was anti-RIR. From the perspective of the working class you had the DUP, other unionist parties and the loyalist paramilitary groups lined up on one side 'rallying the troops' and SF and a variety of left rpublican groups 'rallying the troops' on the other. Anytime anyone organises a protest they really should sit down and ask themselves a question - 'does this protest benefit the working class?' - neither the RIR parade nor the protests against it in any way benefitted the working class - they solely benefitted the sectarians on both sides of the political divide.

Finally - for the CWI organising a seperate protest? - the CWI did what every other 'left' group should have done - 'would a protest benefit the working class?'. Given the why sectarianism was being whipped up in the days before the parade and protest, calling another 'protest' would have served no useful purpose and potentially for those who might participate, creating a target from those on both sides who were looking for trouble.

The working class in the North was fortunate that this entire event passed off relatively peacefully. This will not always be the case. In another situation the DUP and SF will ratchet up sectarianism and left republicans will protest against the DUP with the potential consequences of the working class being once again catapulted into a sectarian conflict. The IRSM, Eirigi, the WSM and everyone else involved have to consider the potential consequences of their actions and decide do they want to be on the side of the working class in the North, catholic and protestant - or do they want to coat-tail nationalism and the danger it poses to the working class.

[Red Conall]

Typical of left republicans - organise a protest with little consideration of the implications or consequences for the working class. Simply adopt a knee-jerk reaction to the sectarian antics of the DUP.

So what - various left republican groups organised their 'own' protests. The reaity is that no one - and I mean no one - saw any difference between the different anti-RIR protests. Not one left republican group protested against SF's approach - the entire focus was anti-RIR. From the perspective of the working class you had the DUP, other unionist parties and the loyalist paramilitary groups lined up on one side 'rallying the troops' and SF and a variety of left rpublican groups 'rallying the troops' on the other. Anytime anyone organises a protest they really should sit down and ask themselves a question - 'does this protest benefit the working class?' - neither the RIR parade nor the protests against it in any way benefitted the working class - they solely benefitted the sectarians on both sides of the political divide.

Finally - for the CWI organising a seperate protest? - the CWI did what every other 'left' group should have done - 'would a protest benefit the working class?'. Given the why sectarianism was being whipped up in the days before the parade and protest, calling another 'protest' would have served no useful purpose and potentially for those who might participate, creating a target from those on both sides who were looking for trouble.

The working class in the North was fortunate that this entire event passed off relatively peacefully. This will not always be the case. In another situation the DUP and SF will ratchet up sectarianism and left republicans will protest against the DUP with the potential consequences of the working class being once again catapulted into a sectarian conflict. The IRSM, Eirigi, the WSM and everyone else involved have to consider the potential consequences of their actions and decide do they want to be on the side of the working class in the North, catholic and protestant - or do they want to coat-tail nationalism and the danger it poses to the working class.

Firstly - I am not a "left republican". Secondly - the failure of others to effectively highlight the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin in organising a demonstration against the event and the whipping up of chauvinist sentiment by the DUP and various other loyalists does not negate the responsibility of CWI as socialists (and I am sure you would argue internationalists) to oppose such a blatant attempt by the British ruling class to illicit support for its imperialist ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another motivation for organising the event, as Sinn Féin correctly highlighted, was to rub the noses of the Catholic community in the proverbial dirt by celebrating these sectarian butchers as returning heroes. The correct approach would have been to appeal to ALL working class people, irrespective of religious affiliation or background, to oppose this cheer leading of war criminals, call for the defeat of imperialism in Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq through the united action of the working class: the only agent of liberation, national or otherwise.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The correct approach would have been to appeal to ALL working class people, irrespective of religious affiliation or background, to oppose this cheer leading of war criminals, call for the defeat of imperialism in Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq through the united action of the working class: the only agent of liberation, national or otherwise.
Of course it would - but that's not what happened is it?

[Red Conall]

Of course it would - but that's not what happened is it?

Not exactly, no, but comrade that doesn't explain why CWI didn't organise its own demonstration or advise others to base their opposition solely on internationalism.

[Jolly Red Giant]

doesn't explain why CWI didn't organise its own demonstration or advise others to base their opposition solely on internationalism.
Did and did.