ira

[cristian12]

is the ira still active sorry if this is the wrong place to put this thread

[Kuppo Shakur]

I suppose from your avatar that you mean the Irish Republican Army?
This site (http://eupolitics.einnews.com/news/irish-republican-army-ira) seems to say so.

[Red Commissar]

Which IRA are you referring to? There's been a number of organizations claiming to be the IRA.

If you mean the IRA that gained reputation in the second half of the 1900s, that was the Provisional IRA. PIRA agreed to disarmament in 2005, some years after the Belfast Agreement in 1998, and demobilized.

Two groups splintered off from the PIRA, the Continuity IRA in 1994 and the Real IRA in late 1997. Both of these are still active though I don't think they had the same impact the PIRA had.

[RepublicanSocialist]

The two groups mentioned by Red Commissar are both very active now. There have been numerous attacks on Brit and Imperialist forces in the last couple of years and numerous bombs discovered or made safe. Red Commissar is right that none have so far had the impact of the Provos in the 70's, 80's and 90's but the situation is very different now than it was then.

The Marxist INLA also decomissioned their arms this year and the Republican Socialist Movement is commited to building a mass working class movement in Ireland as it considers conditions not right for an armed campaign at present.

[Andropov]

Two groups splintered off from the PIRA, the Continuity IRA in 1994 and the Real IRA in late 1997. Both of these are still active though I don't think they had the same impact the PIRA had.
The contos split from the provies in 1986.
And in no way is the CIRA active, political posers at best getting young lads incarerated for half their lives. Dinosaurs leading youth into prison.

[Red Commissar]

The contos split from the provies in 1986.
And in no way is the CIRA active, political posers at best getting young lads incarerated for half their lives. Dinosaurs leading youth into prison.

Just regurgitating what I've read earlier so yes I screwed some things up. It doesn't mean I like them.

[Andropov]

Just regurgitating what I've read earlier. It doesn't mean I like them.
I didnt mean to insinuate that you did, just wanted to clarify it for the original poster.

[Jolly Red Giant]

it considers conditions not right for an armed campaign at present.
The conditions haven't been right for an armed campaign in Ireland since the early part of the nineteenth century. The INLA were wrong in 1974 and they would be wrong again if they started up the 'armed struggle' at any stage in the future. It beggars belief that you could call them Marxist with an outlook like that.

[Ravachol]

The conditions haven't been right for an armed campaign in Ireland since the early part of the nineteenth century. The INLA were wrong in 1974 and they would be wrong again if they started up the 'armed struggle' at any stage in the future. It beggars belief that you could call them Marxist with an outlook like that.

'any stage in the future'? You can't honestly believe there will never again be the necessity for an armed element in the struggle for international communism...

[ComradeOm]

The contos split from the provies in 1986And were too scared to so much as reveal their existence until the mid 1990s

Haven't been keeping in the loop for the last year or so, but wasn't there talk recently that the CIRA (or what's left of them) were being swallowed by the RIRA or vice versa?

[RepublicanSocialist]

The conditions haven't been right for an armed campaign in Ireland since the early part of the nineteenth century. The INLA were wrong in 1974 and they would be wrong again if they started up the 'armed struggle' at any stage in the future. It beggars belief that you could call them Marxist with an outlook like that.


An outlook like what? That at some point point in the future it may take an armed revolution for the Working Class to take power? I would have thought that was the position of most Marxists.

Conditions havent been right for an armed campaign since the start of the early nineteenth century? Are you serious?

[Andropov]

Haven't been keeping in the loop for the last year or so, but wasn't there talk recently that the CIRA (or what's left of them) were being swallowed by the RIRA or vice versa?
There was talk of the South Fermanagh and Monaghan (I think) Brigades leaving the Contos and going to the Reals.
I dont think it ever materialised but if it did happen basically any active member of CIRA would have left them since they are their only remotely active members.

[Andropov]

The conditions haven't been right for an armed campaign in Ireland since the early part of the nineteenth century. The INLA were wrong in 1974 and they would be wrong again if they started up the 'armed struggle' at any stage in the future. It beggars belief that you could call them Marxist with an outlook like that.
The conditions werent right JRG for an armed campaign of National Liberation but they were forced into this context by state repression against the peacefull mobilisation of the Irish working class through the Civil Rights movement.
When the state starts beating and indeed shooting peacefull protestors off the street other avenues of attack would have to be seized.

[Jolly Red Giant]

'any stage in the future'? You can't honestly believe there will never again be the necessity for an armed element in the struggle for international communism...
Of course there is and will be a necessity - but that was not the point I was making (see below)


An outlook like what? That at some point point in the future it may take an armed revolution for the Working Class to take power? I would have thought that was the position of most Marxists.
The INLA were not engaged in an armed revolution - they were engaged in acts of individual terror in the form of urban guerrillaism. For over 20 years the INLA ran up a blind alley that did not produce one positive element with their campaign. They engaged in acts that working class people had no control over and did not support and, on more than one occasion, were responsible for blatant acts of sectarian violence. Armed revolution is a vital aspect of a socialist revolutionary movement in order to defend the revolution from counter-revolutionary forces. Individual terror has nothing what-so-ever in common with it - and actually hinders the process.


Conditions havent been right for an armed campaign since the start of the early nineteenth century? Are you serious?
Guerriallism is the mode of revolutionary upheaval used by peasant movements - not the working class. There were major guerrilla movements in Ireland with the Caravats in 1808-1816, the Rockites in 1820-1824 and the Terry Alts in 1831. These were widespread guerrilla movements that involved literally thousands of peasants (cottiers and landless labourers). In the aftermath of the famine the percentage of the population comprising cottiers and landless labourers collapsed dramatically (by over 80% at the end of the 19th century). The pre-famine guerrilla movements in Ireland posed the possibility of the defeat of British Imperialism - the guerrilla movements post-famine (including the war of independence) were very small by comparison and were never going to have any prospect of succeeding in defeating Imperialism. Just like these latter guerrilla movements were doomed to failure - so too the urban guerrilla movements of individual terror of the IRA and the INLA. They did not in the past, and will not in the future, have any prospect of success, irrespecitve of what 'conditions' emerge. The conditions for a successful guerrilla campaign have not existed in Ireland since the pre-famine period in the early part of the 19th century.

The only force capable of delivering a successful socialist revolution is a united working class movement - not the urban guerrillaism of the INLA.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The conditions werent right JRG for an armed campaign of National Liberation but they were forced into this context by state repression against the peacefull mobilisation of the Irish working class through the Civil Rights movement.
When the state starts beating and indeed shooting peacefull protestors off the street other avenues of attack would have to be seized.
Absolutely - working class protest and working class communities should be defended. However, they should be defended by democratically controlled local defence committees (like the ones that the Socialist Party's forerunners campaigned for and that working class communities actually established in many parts of the North - only to have them disbanded by the IRA). The PIRA (and the OIRA) supplanted these democratic organisations (and others that existed at the time) and replaced them with unaccountable paramilitary groups that then embarked on a campaign of individual terror and urban guerrillaism. Blowing up a pub in Birmingham (for example) had absolutely nothing to do with defending working class communities in the North from attacks by the state forces or paramilitaries.The INLA actually dived into the situation as a fully fledged urban guerrilla organisation that did nothing more than play into the hands of reactionaries. Such tactics have nothing in common with the working class and are an anathema to the workers movement.

[Saorsa]

You're saying that the IRA's use of armed struggle during the war of independence was ineffective? Really?

[Jolly Red Giant]

You're saying that the IRA's use of armed struggle during the war of independence was ineffective? Really?
I am saying that the guerrilla campaign waged by the IRA during the War of Independence did not defeat imperialism - indeed it had limited effect. Both British Imperialism and the Irish capitalist class were far more terrified of the potential of a socialist revolution in Ireland at that time - prompting the use of partition to create sectarian division (along with many other initiatives) in an effort to defeat the workers movement. What changes that accrued to the Irish people (and they were limited at best) were won by the strength of the workers movement rather than the guerrilla campaign of the IRA.

[RepublicanSocialist]

JRG, The INLA were a part of the wider Republican Socialist Movement. This movement tried (and unfortunately failed) to create a mass movement of working class people in Ireland. To say they are not Marxist because some, with hindsight, can say that the time was not right for an armed campaign is not fair or correct.

As for conditions being right for an armed campaign, we can could debate that all day. I believe conditions were right at several stages post famine. The most obvious being the 1916-1920's. Britain was considering conscripting Irish men to join the slaughter in the trenches, there was industrial turmoil all over Ireland with a Soviet being set up in Limerick in 1919 and Catholic and Protestant alike striking in Belfast. Conor Kosticks excellent 'Revolution in Ireland. Popular Millatancy 1917-1923 is an great source of information about the time.

The conditions from 1969 through to the 70's and 80's could be seen by some now in 2011 as being not right for an armed campaign. At the time, if one or two things (perhaps Lynch sending Irish Defence Forces into Derry and Newry in the summer of 69?) had gone slightly differently, then an armed revolution may have succeeded in driving British Imperialism from Ireland and a Socialist 32 County State may have been created.

Conditions for a revolution must surely be created, they will never just appear from a random series of events. The INLA and the wider RSM tried to create these conditions by striking at the British Millitary and other Brit forces in Ireland. Surely this does not make them reactionary and exclude them from calling themselves Marxists.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

The only force capable of delivering a successful socialist revolution is a united working class movement - not the urban guerrillaism of the INLA.

True, not just across Ireland either but in Glasgow in 1919 they had established a strike committee running the entire city, of course there were developments elsewhere and the 1921 miners strike was bitterly betrayed by the unions, there are far too many things to mention here but that was basically the only way of achieving a revolution, through unity across the whole region(s).

That particular point remains true even today.

[Jolly Red Giant]

JRG, The INLA were a part of the wider Republican Socialist Movement. This movement tried (and unfortunately failed) to create a mass movement of working class people in Ireland.
The IRSP didn't try to create a mass movement of working class people - it hung onto the coat-tails of republicanism.


To say they are not Marxist because some, with hindsight, can say that the time was not right for an armed campaign is not fair or correct.
Individual terror is an anathema to Marxism - it is a method of struggle for the working class that is counter to all Marxist thought. It is the tactic of a group with no understanding of Marxism.


As for conditions being right for an armed campaign, we can could debate that all day.
Let's debate it - I can assure you it will not take all day.


I believe conditions were right at several stages post famine.
List them please.


The most obvious being the 1916-1920's.
As I state earlier - guerrillaism is the method of struggle of the peasantry and rural poor. In 1821 the peasantry and rural poor comprised well over 90% of a backward country based on a rural economy. Guerrillaism was effective and could potentially have been more effective during the three major rural guerrilla uprisings in the pre-famine period. In the post-famine period the three attempts at guerrilla uprisings - Young Irelanders in 1848, Fenians in 1867 and the Invincibles in 1880's (although the Invincibles adopted tactics more akin to individual terror) - were all abysmal failures. By 1921 less than 35% of the population were rurally based (compared to 90% in Russia of 1917) - the material conditions for engaging in guerrillaism had long since passed their sell-by-date.


Britain was considering conscripting Irish men to join the slaughter in the trenches,
Defeated not by republicanism or the IRA - but by a mass general strike by the Irish working class.


there was industrial turmoil all over Ireland with a Soviet being set up in Limerick in 1919 and Catholic and Protestant alike striking in Belfast.
Yes there was a Soviet in Limerick and yes there was united class action in Belfast (action that republicans and the IRA worked to undermine). But there was not just one incident - there was widespread strike activity - 3 full scale general strikes - 18 regional general strikes - and literally dozens of workers soviets around the country.

Republicans will admit that the entire guerrilla campaign from 1919-1922 did not lead to the IRA taking over a single farmhouse for any period of time. In contrast the workers movement took over dozens of towns and villages (including Limerick) often being in complete control for periods up to several weeks. This clearly demonstrates the superiority of mass action by the working class in contrast to the very limited impact of the IRA campaign during this period. Not alone that but the republican movement consciously made efforts to undermine, circumvent and attack (both politically and physically) the workers movement - even going as far as assisting the establishment of armed embryonic fascist groups to physically challange the workers movement, planning to launch armed attacks on workers in British based trade unions in an effort to split the unions along sectarian lines and working with Unionists (and even the British establishment) to defeat the workers movement. Many republicans were even willing to put the nationalist struggle to one side in order to ensure the defeat of socialism.


Conor Kosticks excellent 'Revolution in Ireland. Popular Millatancy 1917-1923 is an great source of information about the time.
Kostick's book is seriously lacking in a Marxist analysis (despite being a member of the SWP he made little attempt) - it bounces around all over the place, contains flights of fancy and has historical inaccuracies. In terms of a historical work for this period, Emmet O'Connor's Syndicalism in Ireland, 1917-1923 is better.


The conditions from 1969 through to the 70's and 80's could be seen by some now in 2011 as being not right for an armed campaign.
The Militant Tendency (the forerunners of the Socialist Party) explained in 1970 that individual terror would be nothing more than a blind alley for Catholic youth and would fail. No hindsight - but an understanding of the material conditions, the nature of society and that the tactics were unsiutable and counter-productive to the situation faced by the Northern working class.


At the time, if one or two things (perhaps Lynch sending Irish Defence Forces into Derry and Newry in the summer of 69?) had gone slightly differently, then an armed revolution may have succeeded in driving British Imperialism from Ireland and a Socialist 32 County State may have been created.
To be honest - this is the stuff of cloud-cuckoo land. To suggest that a mad military adventure by the Southern bourgeois establishment would have led to socialist revolution is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Military intervention by the South would have provoked a full-scale civil war with thousands of deaths, a re-partitioning of the country and in all likelihood the establishment of bonapartist regimes on both sides of the border.


Conditions for a revolution must surely be created, they will never just appear from a random series of events.
Conditions for revolution are created by the following -
1. A severe crisis in the capitalist establishment with the regime split.
2. A developed class cosciousness within the working class
3. The middle classes vacillating between the bourgeoisie and the working class
4. The existance of a mass revolutionary party and leadership.

In the North in 1969 -
1. Existed to a certain degree.
2. Was in the process of developing but still had some way to go.
3. Was partially developed.
4. Was completely missing.

and yes - random events can play a very important part in a revolutionary situation (example - the reaction by the British authorities to the shooting of Robert Byrne during an IRA rescue attempt was the catalyst for the Limerick Soviet which then took on a complete life of its own).


The INLA and the wider RSM tried to create these conditions by striking at the British Millitary and other Brit forces in Ireland.
A tactic that was and is counter-productive and counter to a Marxist understanding of the situation. Shooting the odd soldier or RUC man and blowing up the odd pub does nothing to create a revolutionary situation but does lead to creating division between the working class of the North and increased repression by the state (a repression that actully has the support of sections of the working class). What it does demonstrate is that the INLA and IRSP did not have confidence in the ability of the working class to change society and want to replace the working class in 'creating the conditions' for revolution.


Surely this does not make them reactionary and exclude them from calling themselves Marxists.
It makes them seriously misguided, lacking in a consciousness necessary to understand the nature of society, lacking confidence in the working class as a revolutionary force, lacking an understanding of Marxism and yes, given the tactics, it excludes them from calling themselves Marxist.

[howblackisyourflag]

Good post JRG. What do you think are the correct tactics right now in Ireland to bring about Socialism?

[Hoggy_RS]

Good post JRG. What do you think are the correct tactics right now in Ireland to bring about Socialism?

How would the CWI have time to bring about socialism when they are so busy criticising and dismissing revolutionary movements across the world?

Now enjoy your thread of Sunday World gossip courtesy of capitalist propaganda peddler Jolly Red Giant.

[Bubbles]

Ireland nformation group of Sweden:
http://www.irlandinformation.se/

(a lot is in english, but some problems with the website due to software problems so it can be hard to find material from before -09)

[Jolly Red Giant]

Good post JRG. What do you think are the correct tactics right now in Ireland to bring about Socialism?
There is no magic formula - the class consciousness of the working class in Ireland is at a low ebb (significantly lower than the mid-1980's). Current events will assist in workers learning (and re-learning) the nature of capitalism. Political activists can also assist through building both a mass left party and a revolutionary party. A mass left party is necessary because workers will need to learn that reformism can only bring things so far. The working class will have to go through that process before it will draw revolutionary conclusions. Some workers will draw revolutionary conclusions without the need for learning the limitations of reformism, but these will be in a minority.

The working class needs to rediscover its confidence and its understanding that it is the most powerful force within society and this process could and likely will be drawn out as the class struggle makes advances and suffers setbacks. The key to these developments is the building of working class unity both on this island and on an international basis. This unity can be built through a process of developing transitional demands that will help to educate workers and facilitate the class struggle.


How would the CWI have time to bring about socialism when they are so busy criticising and dismissing revolutionary movements across the world?
The CWI has never dismissed any revolutionary movement, no matter what its nature - the CWI will analyse any situation from a Marxist perspective and explain our view of the developing process. If necessary we will criticise the tactics of those movements. We are not cheerleaders for anyone and do not offer unconditional support to anyone.


Now enjoy your thread of Sunday World gossip courtesy of capitalist propaganda peddler Jolly Red Giant.
Yea - yea - heard it all before - but don't forget - the INLA / IRSM were not and are not a revolutionary movement.


Ireland nformation group of Sweden:
http://www.irlandinformation.se/

Wow - brilliant - another cheerleader for sectarian paramilitarism.

[RepublicanSocialist]

JRG, I will try to address a few of your points and answer a few of your questions. Im not sure how to use the multi quote thing so apologies if the post appears all over the place.

You said "The IRSP didn't try to create a mass movement of working class people - it hung onto the coat-tails of republicanism." Really? They didnt even try? Being Republicans themselves (the clue is in the name) I dont see how they hung on the coat tails of Republicanism.

You said in reference to me believing that conditions had been right for armed struggle at several stages "Let's debate it - I can assure you it will not take all day." What I meant was that not you (or anybody) is going to convince me that conditions had been wrong for armed campaigns in Ireland since the early nineteenth century. So why waste our time.

I mentioned a couple of reasons why I thought conditions for an armed campaign were right in the 1916-20's era. One of them was the threat of conscription. You then said "Defeated not by republicanism or the IRA - but by a mass general strike by the Irish working class." Where did I say it had been defeated by the IRA? I mentioned conscription as another reason why at the time Ireland was in turmoil.

I mentioned the Limerick Soviet, Strikes in Belfast and industrial turmoil all over Ireland. You then go on to expand on this and mention how the mass action of the workers did more to frighten the British than the IRA campaign. I couldnt agree more and nowhere did I say otherwise. I simply listed this period of time where conditions were right for an armed struggle. The way you listed the industrial and working class activity going I nearly started to believe you did as well.

You then discuss my belief that conditions were right in 1969-70's. You say "The Militant Tendency (the forerunners of the Socialist Party) explained in 1970 that individual terror would be nothing more than a blind alley for Catholic youth and would fail. No hindsight - but an understanding of the material conditions, the nature of society and that the tactics were unsiutable and counter-productive to the situation faced by the Northern working class." To people involved at the time in places like the Bogside, West Belfast, South Derry, South Armagh and others, this WAS a mass rising. Whole areas of the cities and countryside were rejecting British rule. There was a genuine feeling that Britain could be forced out. It is a pity that they didnt listen to the Militant Tendancy and just not bother. But I am sure they were not the first and will not be the last to not listen to the Militant Tendancy.

I mentioned if One or Two events had gone slightly differently given the highly volitile situation in 1969 then an armed revolution may have succeeded. I perhaps used a bad example, but the point remains. In that powder keg situation, anything could have happened. I was not trying to suggest that Lynch would have rode to the rescue but merely if he had become involved then it would have further ecsalated the situation.

You then came back to whether or not conditions in 69 were right for an armed struggle. Even in the lists you gave, conditions were not far off being right. On point 4 where you say there was no mass revolutionary party, I believe that is exactly what the Sticks tried to become. They failed, but (as with the RSM) they did try. What would you have had them do?

I have to go back to work now but I hope I have answered and dealt with some of your points. I will conclude by saying that if it were left to people with an attitude that you have displayed in your posts on this thread then there would never be any revolution, no struggles for National Liberation, no working class resistance at all, anywhere in the world. People would be waiting for the greenlight from the Militant Tendancy to see if conditions were perfect to resist or whether they should lie down and be walked all over by for another couple of hundred years.

[Hoggy_RS]

The CWI has never dismissed any revolutionary movement, no matter what its nature - the CWI will analyse any situation from a Marxist perspective and explain our view of the developing process. If necessary we will criticise the tactics of those movements. We are not cheerleaders for anyone and do not offer unconditional support to anyone.


Yea - yea - heard it all before - but don't forget - the INLA / IRSM were not and are not a revolutionary movement.


Wow - brilliant - another cheerleader for sectarian paramilitarism.
Do you see the second paragraph? ya you just dismissed a revolutionary movement. What makes the SP revolutionary in comparision to the IRSP? All those cosy years in Labour? Ah jaysus ye were storming towards the revolution while the INLA was protecting communities.

I'm aware your an Irish trotskyite so its difficult to accept anyone outside the SP/SWP is a marxist but your analysis of the present day IRSP is so far off its outrageous. The ranks of the IRSP are made of nearly exclusivley marxists, the IRSP's outlook is heavily swayed by marxist thought and the ideology of the party is based of the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Connolly, Costello and Power, not just for the craic but because these are the theorists who have the most effect on the partys ideas.

Maybe marxism to you is cosying up to loyalist killers, completly disregarding the catholic working class and viewing anti-imperialism as sectarianism. If so then no we certainly do not conform to yer idea of marxism.

[Andropov]

Absolutely - working class protest and working class communities should be defended. However, they should be defended by democratically controlled local defence committees (like the ones that the Socialist Party's forerunners campaigned for and that working class communities actually established in many parts of the North - only to have them disbanded by the IRA). The PIRA (and the OIRA) supplanted these democratic organisations (and others that existed at the time) and replaced them with unaccountable paramilitary groups
Typical CWI empty rehtorric, what we come to expect really.
These "local defence committee's" were tiny and unable to defend communities from attack.
They were a good idea but the very context of Ireland at this time made them unable to exist.
The fact that any organisation that was progressive in Ireland at this time to survive had to be clandestine due to MI5, the British Military, the RUC and Loyalist death squads.
If these "local defence committees" existed over any lenght of time in Ireland during this context they would be all dead.
It simply was not viable and a pure cop out by the CWI.
And if indeed the CWI did champion these "local defence committees" why didnt they walk the walk and send recruits to them to help train and finance them?
Ohh thats right the CWI doesnt actually like to do the work on the ground when it gets dirty, they like to preach from the sidelines while they hold hands with convicted Loyalist murderers who were members of death squads and cry about Prison Officer welfare.
Secondly the likes of the PIRA and INLA were very much accountable to their communities since their communities help finance, protect and volunteer for these organisations.
They are not some independant unit thrown into the ghettos, they grew from the ghettos and walked the walk. While the CWI and cowards like you were preaching from your arm chairs these men and women shed their blood protecting working class communities from Loyalist death squads.

that then embarked on a campaign of individual terror and urban guerrillaism.
Typical mis-analysis of the CWI.
There was nothing "individual terrorism" about the likes of the PIRA and INLA's campaigns since they had over whelming working class support in the ghettos they existed in.

Blowing up a pub in Birmingham (for example) had absolutely nothing to do with defending working class communities in the North from attacks by the state forces or paramilitaries.
Indeed, but im not going to defend the PIRA's campaign.

The INLA actually dived into the situation as a fully fledged urban guerrilla organisation that did nothing more than play into the hands of reactionaries.
Usual wrong analysis of a CWI mouthpiece.
If indeed the PIRA and INLA did not exist then thousands of working class people would have been ethnically cleansed, another uncomfortable fact for CWI revisionism.
Secondly for you to state these working class organisations made it worse is absurd since that means that somehow the struggle against Imperialism is indeed the cause of sectarian degenerates in Loyalism.
When it is blatantly clear that the cause of sectarianism is Imperialism, not anti-Imperialism.
Its akin to stating the Partizans resistance against NAZI occupation should have been avoided because of the brutality of the NAZI after these attacks, in effect sideing with the oppressor because of your impotence.

Such tactics have nothing in common with the working class and are an anathema to the workers movement.
The war of National Liberation was fought by the working class for the working class.
Indeed it failed, no disputing that.
But it did effectively give the people of Ireland some greater social rights and helped tone down the social descrimination they faced daily and that is not to be sneered at.
For all their empty rehtorric and cheap sloganeering it was the Volunteers of the PIRA and INLA that effectively achieved what the Civil Rights movement wanted, not the CWI or the other arm chair trots, an uncomfortable truth they are unwilling to accept.

[costello1977]

There's an awful lot of rubbish being espoused here, especially by JRG, no learning would be possible on a thread like this.

Take it to Irishrepublican.net JRG, they'll buy into it.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I'll apologise for two long posts in addressing these comments. The length is required to deal with the comments in any kind of a comprehensive fashion.


Being Republicans themselves (the clue is in the name) I dont see how they hung on the coat tails of Republicanism.
The IRSP / INLA placed republicansim at the fore of their campaign - not socialism. As with all 'republican socialist' organisations, a choice of placing predominance on one or the other aspect of their philosophy and inevitably republicansim becomes dominant and socialism si pushed to the background.


What I meant was that not you (or anybody) is going to convince me that conditions had been wrong for armed campaigns in Ireland since the early nineteenth century. So why waste our time.
Fair enough - maybe others will learn from the debate - maybe you cannot be convinced but you might convince others (or not as the case may be). But hey - if you don't want to debate fair enough - I hope that decision does not come from a lack of confidence in your ability to defend your views.


Where did I say it had been defeated by the IRA? I mentioned conscription as another reason why at the time Ireland was in turmoil.
Given that you were arguing that during the period for 1916-1922 conditions were appropriate for a campaign of guerrillaism - the logical extension was that you were claiming the conscription campaign indicated the appropriateness of guerrillaism - the same with your comments about the Limerick Soviet. Now if these examples were not intended to demonstrate that conditions were right for guerrillaism, then maybe you could please indicate how conditions were appropriate for a guerrilla campaign.


To people involved at the time in places like the Bogside, West Belfast, South Derry, South Armagh and others, this WAS a mass rising. Whole areas of the cities and countryside were rejecting British rule.
To start with the British Army were welcomed into Catholic areas when initially deployed - including being welcomed by many republicans (indeed many republicans begged for the army to be deployed). The opposition that existed at the time was opposition to the RUC and in particular the actions of the B specials.


There was a genuine feeling that Britain could be forced out. It is a pity that they didnt listen to the Militant Tendancy and just not bother. But I am sure they were not the first and will not be the last to not listen to the Militant Tendancy.

I am going to go through this in some detail - it addresses a lot of the misunderstood points raise by both Hoggy and Andropov

Members of the Militant Tendency were active in the Derry Young Socialists and involved with other socialists in organising the first civil rights marches. The initial demands of the civil rights marches were class demands put forward by left-wing activists that linked the issue of discrimination with class demands. It was only after middle class Catholic politicians like Hume took control of the NICRA, with the assistance of the Communist Party, that the demands were narrowed to 'anti-unionist unity' instead of 'class unity'. Hume and his cohorts worked to suppress strikes and protests that were breaking out on a daily basis in the city (and supported by both Cathloic and Protestant workers). Furthermore they banned banners, placards and slogans on demonstrations. 'Anti-unionist unity' was, and still is, nothing more than another term for Catholic unity. In the name of this 'anti-unionist unity' any attempt at building a bridge to the Protestant working class was abandoned.

When Protestant workers listened to the speeches of John Hume, ex- Nationalist Party MP Austin Currie, and others like them, all they could hear was a call for more jobs, more houses, better treatment for Catholics. Instead of demanding an end to poverty these people seemed to be saying things would be all right if it was dished out evenly to the two communities. This is very similar to the 'parity of esteem' peddled by Adams and the current SF leadership.

A Militant leaflet, drawn up and issued by the Militant members then in Derry, warned; "Demonstrations, divorced from the main body of the labour movement, in support only of limited reforms may alienate some Protestant workers who are suspicious of the Civil Rights Movement, and will only be convinced by a movement which can be seen to offer a solution to their problems."

Having been largely ignored by the Protestant working class, Paisley was now gaining some support by being able to point to the NICRA as a purely Catholic movement out to promote Catholic interests. As a result sectarian tensions began to rise. As the situation deteriorate members of the Militant participated in the defence of the Bogside. A pogrom was certainly on the cards at this point despite the fact that Protestant workers did assist in the defence of the Bogside. at this point there were widespread calls from Catholic representatives for the troops to be sent in.

There was almost universal support for the entry of the troops. People in the Catholic areas welcomed them as a relieving army. The NILP, the Irish Labour Party, and of course, the British Labour Party, whose government sent them, gave support. So did virtually all the civil right leaders including those who later backed the Provisional IRA. Likewise most of the fringe socialist groups in Britain, such as the Socialist Worker Party (then the International Socialists), people who were soon to b cheering on the IRA, supported the government's decision.

Militant, along with left wing members of the NILP in Derry, found itself virtually alone in opposing. The September 1969 issue of the Militant paper, under headline, 'Withdraw the Troops' predicted;

"The call made for the entry of British troops will turn to vinegar in the mouths of some of the civil rights leaders. The troops have been sent to impose a solution in the interests of British and Ulster big business".

The arrival of soldiers did have a temporary effect in restoring calm to some areas. However across most of the North there was not a soldier to be seen. In most areas peace was kept by non-sectarian defence or peace committees made up of both Catholics and Protestants. Shop stewards in the shipyards took action to prevent the intimidation of Catholics and their example was taken up in many other workplaces.

The outline of a non-sectarian defence force, based on the trade unions and on community activists, existed even during the fierce sectarian fighting of August. This could have been built upon if a clear lead had come from the trade union or NILP leaders. Instead these leaders supported the army and argued that their members should rely on the troops, not on their own strength.

The effect of this mistaken policy was that the defence committees eventually dwindled away or were takenover by republican paramilitaries. Bodies which could have mobilised Protestant and Catholic workers against sectarianism were gone. Instead there was British Army which could unite no-one and solve nothing.



I mentioned if One or Two events had gone slightly differently given the highly volitile situation in 1969 then an armed revolution may have succeeded. I perhaps used a bad example, but the point remains. In that powder keg situation, anything could have happened. I was not trying to suggest that Lynch would have rode to the rescue but merely if he had become involved then it would have further ecsalated the situation.
Yes - your example was bad - the only result of any military intervention by Lynch would be sectarian civil war - and remember FF did intervene to split the SF out of a fear that the socialist inspired protests in the North could link up with the radicialised movements in the South that were happening around issues like the housing campaign. Even after August 1969 it was socialist ideas that were dominant in discussions among activists behind the barracades.


You then came back to whether or not conditions in 69 were right for an armed struggle. Even in the lists you gave, conditions were not far off being right.
This list is a list of conditions for a successful socialist revolution - not a campaign of individual terror. The 'armed struggle' never was a positive development and never could be. It played directly into the hands of reactionary loyalism and imperialism (in a similar, but more extreme fashion, than Hume and the Catholic leadership of the NICRA).


I believe that is exactly what the Sticks tried to become.
The Stickies coat-tailed the NICRA and adopted an approach of piecemeal reforms within the Northern state. Under capitalism the necessary reforms could never be delivered. From the moment of the split with PSF, the Stickies were on the decline as a potential revolutionary force.


but (as with the RSM) they did try.
The Stickies were actually in a position to have a profound influence - the INLA/ IRSP never were - the INLA was simply an individual terror organisation that never achieved anything more than minimal appeal within the Catholic community.


What would you have had them do?
Any Marxist would and should have supported class based initiatives like the local community defence organisations and attempted to build workers unity. The INLA when they came into existance did the opposite.


People would be waiting for the greenlight from the Militant Tendancy to see if conditions were perfect to resist or whether they should lie down and be walked all over by for another couple of hundred years.
This has nothing to do with conditions being perfect for anything. Marxists have to analyse the conditions that prevail, adapt accordingly and attempt to build a united class movement to avail of the opportunites for socialist revolution that will arise when a revolutionary situation develops. Revolutionary situations cannot be manufactured, they are inherent in the capitalist system. The campaign of the INLA did nothing except set back the possibility of a revolutionary situation developing.


I will conclude by saying that if it were left to people with an attitude that you have displayed in your posts on this thread then there would never be any revolution, no struggles for National Liberation, no working class resistance at all, anywhere in the world.
Not for the first time a republican claims that if a Marxist doesn't support the 'armed struggle' that it means they don't support revolution. Since the inception of Marxism, campaigns of individual terror and urban guerrillaism have been an anathema to the movement. Marx rejected individual terror and so did every other leading Marxist who engaged with revolutionary movements.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Do you see the second paragraph? ya you just dismissed a revolutionary movement.
Hoggy - The INLA are not, will not and never can be a Marxist revolutionary movement. It has engaged in tactics that have been rejected as Marxist right back to Marx himself. You can claim that it is a 'revolutionary movement' but it is a damned small one and what kind of 'revolution' it could lead to is very much open to question.


What makes the SP revolutionary in comparision to the IRSP?
And here is the difference - I have never claimed that the CWI is a 'revolutionary movement'. It is way too small on a global basis to be considered anything more than a Marxist propaganda group who engage with the workers movement in assisting class struggle. It has a revolutionary programme and a revolutionary outlook, but only time will tell if it is capable of developing into a revolutionary movement (and to be honest I couldn't care less if it didn't provided some other organisation did - but that other organisation will not be the INLA/IRSP).



These "local defence committee's" were tiny and unable to defend communities from attack.

They were a good idea but the very context of Ireland at this time made them unable to exist.

The fact that any organisation that was progressive in Ireland at this time to survive had to be clandestine due to MI5, the British Military, the RUC and Loyalist death squads.

If these "local defence committees" existed over any lenght of time in Ireland during this context they would be all dead.
This is actually a very important issue that needs to be addressed.

Did these community defence committees have any impact and if they had developed to play a dominant role how would Imperialism have reacted?

1. The local defence committees were not tiny. The were widespread around the North at the time. when the british army arrived it patrolled pretty much only in Belfast and Derry. These local defence committees in the inital stages prevented widespread pogroms breaking out around the North. Furthermore industrial defence committees prevented sectarian attacks against Catholic workers in the workplace during this period. One of the most effective committees was in shipyards. Now in order to grow, to increase in effectiveness these organisations needed a class outllok and needed to be armed (the arming of these committees would have been for defensive purposes, not to engage in acts of individual terror).

2. The demise of the local defence committees was down to two factors - firstly and most importantly the decision by the NILP and the NICTU to hand total responsibility for the protection of communities over to the British army rather than mobilise the working class to defend communities - secondly, the conscious decision by republican paramilitaries to ensure that they did not have competing authority in 'their community'. Republicans tookover those they could and wrecked the rest to leave a clear road for the IRA to claim to be the defenders of the Catholic community.

3. There is one force in society when it is mobilised effectively that Imperialism is incapable of using repression to suppress. That force is a united working class movement. Any widespread community based and democratically organised defence campaign would have nullified the impact of repression. Indeed any effort by Imperialism to use repression against it could well have precipitated a revolutionary upheaval. Once the Protestant working class were involved the threat to their very system of capitalism would have stayed the hand of imperialism. Furthermore, the public knowledge of those in the democratic leadership of such committees would actually have protected these individuals as any strike against them would have been clearly demonstrated as a political act by the state. This is not to say they wouldn't have attempted it - but they could never have got away with the scale of repression that was introduced in the North using the IRA campaign as an excuse.



And if indeed the CWI did champion these "local defence committees" why didnt they walk the walk and send recruits to them to help train and finance them?
The CWI was a very small organisation at the time. It had limited influence and even less money. Those members who were based in the North did participate in these committees and continued to use the same methods to defend workers from paramilitary threats and attacks right up to the ceasefires. On numerous occasions members of the Socialist Party organised workers action to force the INLA to withdraw threats against Protestant workers working in the Catholic areas.



Secondly the likes of the PIRA and INLA were very much accountable to their communities since their communities help finance, protect and volunteer for these organisations.

There was nothing "individual terrorism" about the likes of the PIRA and INLA's campaigns since they had over whelming working class support in the ghettos they existed in.

This is nonsense - to start with the INLA never had any support outside of a couple of hardline ghettos where they were based. The IRA had greater support but never anything like 'overwhelming support' - indeed it never even had 'majority support' within the Catholic working class and had none among Protestant workers.

If you want to address accountablility of republican paramilitaries you need look no further back than the murder of Robert McCartney and the subsequent treatment of his family.


these men and women shed their blood protecting working class communities from Loyalist death squads.
How many members of the INLA were killed during the Troubles (and how many of those were killed in internal feuds?) How many members of the INLA were killed in defending (and I stress defending) working class communities from Loyalist death squads?



Indeed, but im not going to defend the PIRA's campaign.
And the INLA never blew up a pub?



If indeed the PIRA and INLA did not exist then thousands of working class people would have been ethnically cleansed,
This is nonsense – the reality is that anytime a threat existed that the situation had the potential of slipping over into open and outright sectarian civil war, the working class through the trade unions instinctively moved to prevent it. The best example was the mass demonstrations against sectarian killings in December 1975 and January 1976 in Derry, Newry and Lurgan that forced the NICTU leadership to launch the ‘Better Life for All’ Campaign. The only time a situation would arise whereby open sectarian civil war would develop would be following the atomisation of the workers organisations, namely the trade unions. Despite the conflict in the North, not one single trade union split along sectarian lines. Within the trade union movement that comprised of over 200,000 workers, paramilitary organisations from either side of the sectarian divide could never gain a foothold – the working class wouldn’t tolerate it.



Secondly for you to state these working class organisations made it worse is absurd since that means that somehow the struggle against Imperialism is indeed the cause of sectarian degenerates in Loyalism.
The IRA and the INLA may have been comprised of working class people – that however does not make them working class organisations. The Nazis had a large working class component but that did not make them a working class organisation. What determines the nature of any organisation is its composition, its outlook and its orientation. To be a working class organisation you need to be comprised of working class people, have a class outlook, orientate towards the development of united working class action and be under working class control. The INLA and the IRA may have attacked elements of an Imperialist state but that did not and does not automatically make them anti-imperialist organisations. They did not and do not have a class outlook, did not attempt to develop working class unity and were not and are not under the control of the working class. For any paramilitary force to be classed as a working class organisation it has to be under the democratic control of those it purports to represent. In exactly the same way the loyalist paramilitaries were composed of the working class, but they could not be remotely described as working class organisations. The IRA and the INLA never had any hope of defeating imperialism and provided an opportunity for imperialism and the sectarians to propagandise among the Protestant working class and an excuse for imperialism to impose repression primarily against the Catholic working class.



Its akin to stating the Partizans resistance against NAZI occupation should have been avoided because of the brutality of the NAZI after these attacks, in effect sideing with the oppressor because of your impotence.
I was wondering how long it would take you to make this argument. However, you premise is still false. The Catholic community was not faced with oppression by fascism – it was faced with state repression (a repression limited by what the British state could get away with when considering their own working class). Britain was not and is not a fascist state. The conflict in the North was not and is not a conflict against fascism. To make the analogy is simply clutching at straws.


The war of National Liberation was fought by the working class for the working class.
Actually most wars of national liberation are fought by the native bourgeois class using and manipulating the working class for their own ends. Wars of national liberation are precisely that – wars to create a nation state. The creation of a nation state on its own serves no purpose for the working class. Indeed in the current epoch, wars of national liberation are doomed to failure as national liberation is unachievable except as a component part of socialist revolution.



But it did effectively give the people of Ireland some greater social rights and helped tone down the social descrimination they faced daily and that is not to be sneered at.
For all their empty rehtorric and cheap sloganeering it was the Volunteers of the PIRA and INLA that effectively achieved what the Civil Rights movement wanted, not the CWI or the other arm chair trots, an uncomfortable truth they are unwilling to accept.
This again is a complete misunderstanding of the situation – any gains won were not won by a paramilitary campaign by republican paramilitaries but by class action primarily as a result of trade union activity. Just because the situation has changed in the North (and not necessarily for the better in many respects) does not mean that it is as a result of the paramilitary campaign. Right throughout the Troubles in the North, trade unions and workers campaigned for rights and reforms for the working class. It is the same argument used in the South when the LP and union bureaucrats claim that we would not have equal rights for women if it weren’t for the EU. This automatically implies that women were incapable of campaigning for and achieving reforms. Many reforms were achieved – however it is not possible to point to one single reform in the North that was brought about directly as a result of paramilitarism.

[Hoggy_RS]

Hoggy - The INLA are not, will not and never can be a Marxist revolutionary movement. It has engaged in tactics that have been rejected as Marxist right back to Marx himself. You can claim that it is a 'revolutionary movement' but it is a damned small one and what kind of 'revolution' it could lead to is very much open to question.


And here is the difference - I have never claimed that the CWI is a 'revolutionary movement'. It is way too small on a global basis to be considered anything more than a Marxist propaganda group who engage with the workers movement in assisting class struggle. It has a revolutionary programme and a revolutionary outlook, but only time will tell if it is capable of developing into a revolutionary movement (and to be honest I couldn't care less if it didn't provided some other organisation did - but that other organisation will not be the INLA/IRSP).

The INLA worked in the conditions that were presented to them. With the forces of british imperialism present in the streets of the north it would be impossible for these community defence communities to exist. It just was never was possible. The INLA took the fight to the brits which was a battle they could never win in hindsight but that doesn't mean we should reject the sacrifices of the INLA volunteers. Anyways JRG the INLA is no longer on the scene so they are somewhat irrelavant to the politics of current day IRSP. The IRSP is now pledging all its resources and time towards trying to unite the northern working class and build class conciousness across the country.

I too could not care less what organisation leads a revolutionary situation in this country as long as it happens. It may well not be the IRSP but if we can recruit more people to the ideas of marxism than that will be a result for not only us but all marxists in Ireland. Although we may differ on politics now i think our goals are the same.

[Ravachol]

The INLA worked in the conditions that were presented to them. With the forces of british imperialism present in the streets of the north it would be impossible for these community defence communities to exist. It just was never was possible. The INLA took the fight to the brits which was a battle they could never win in hindsight but that doesn't mean we should reject the sacrifices of the INLA volunteers. Anyways JRG the INLA is no longer on the scene so they are somewhat irrelavant to the politics of current day IRSP. The IRSP is now pledging all its resources and time towards trying to unite the northern working class and build class conciousness across the country.


What are the significant differences between Sticks' post-'60s strategy and the IRSP's new line? Just asking out of genuine interest.

[Hoggy_RS]

What are the significant differences between Sticks' post-'60s strategy and the IRSP's new line? Just asking out of genuine interest.
It certainly is similar isn't it? Well there is no plans to follow the sticks anti-republican plans. The IRSP is not ashamed of its republicanism or its past. The marxism of the sticks was also ridiculous with their support for global capitalsim in the sense that Multi-nationals would build an urban working class in ireland who could then create a revolutionary situation. The IRSP have no plans to become the cheerleaders of British imperialism in the name of anti-nationalism as the sticks did. But there is certainly alot to be said for how well the sticks involved themselves in social issues and built up great support in working class areas and they had some good ideas no doub that republican socialist could take inspiration from.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The INLA worked in the conditions that were presented to them. With the forces of british imperialism present in the streets of the north it would be impossible for these community defence communities to exist. It just was never was possible.
For clarification - local defence committees did exist with the British army on the streets. During the initial period following the deployment of the Brits, they only patrolled in Belfast and Derry - in the rest of the north (and even in parts of Belfast) local defence committees were the bodies that prevented pogroms. The IRA consciously either took over or wrecked the committees adopting the attitude that they would not tolerate competition for the title of 'defenders' of the Catholic community (in the same way they subsequently dismissed the role of the OIRA during this period).


The INLA took the fight to the brits which was a battle they could never win in hindsight
It may have been hindsight for the INLA/IRSP - it certainly wasn't for the CWI.


What are the significant differences between Sticks' post-'60s strategy and the IRSP's new line? Just asking out of genuine interest.
Being blunt - the Stickies went over lock, stock and barrel to Stalinism and adopted the stages theory. The IRSP don't actually have a strategy (at least not one that is in any way obvious to me).

[empiredestoryer]

The i.r.a did not drive the british out of ireland you must remmeber that all evil empires come too an end just the roman empire did and american empire will too ..and it should be wellcomed

[Andropov]

Did these community defence committees have any impact and if they had developed to play a dominant role how would Imperialism have reacted?
All interesting points JRG.
They of course had an impact, the real arguement is the scale of the impact.
The one of biggest note was of course DCDA where it was anything but miniscule in comparison to the other miniscule Defence Comittees that were largely irrelevant.

1. The local defence committees were not tiny. The were widespread around the North at the time. when the british army arrived it patrolled pretty much only in Belfast and Derry. These local defence committees in the inital stages prevented widespread pogroms breaking out around the North.
They were of course tiny outside of the DCDA and to suggest otherwise is only historical revisionism and factually incorrect.
Secondly Pogroms existed where the material conditions precipitated them, not the existance of the said defence committees.
Indeed the very nature of the defence committees ment that their existance along hotbeds of Loyalist Reactionaryism was not to be seen, which indeed proves my point that they simply were not viable given the context.

Furthermore industrial defence committees prevented sectarian attacks against Catholic workers in the workplace during this period. One of the most effective committees was in shipyards.
How effective was these "industrial defence committees"?
Numbers, equipment and engagements please?

Now in order to grow, to increase in effectiveness these organisations needed a class outllok and needed to be armed (the arming of these committees would have been for defensive purposes, not to engage in acts of individual terror).
And where were you JRG?
Why didnt you and your ilke educate and arm these Defence Committees?
Ohh thats right, when the going gets dirty the CWI doesnt like stepping down from that nice ivory tower you perpetually inhabit.

2. The demise of the local defence committees was down to two factors - firstly and most importantly the decision by the NILP and the NICTU to hand total responsibility for the protection of communities over to the British army rather than mobilise the working class to defend communities
One of the main problems with the Defence Committees was the inability of the radicals to gain control over the committees.
Conservatives like Paddy Doherty even went as far as to ban the likes of Bernadette Devlin from Free Derry in order to cement his control over the DCDA since Bernadette was constantly undermining some of the reformist leaders by radicalising the youth of Derry.

- secondly, the conscious decision by republican paramilitaries to ensure that they did not have competing authority in 'their community'. Republicans tookover those they could and wrecked the rest to leave a clear road for the IRA to claim to be the defenders of the Catholic community.
Absolute and utter nonsense.
The likes of Johnny White who was indeed Adjutant General of the INLA was one of the leading founders of the DCDA and was one of the key members in the radicalisation of the DCDA. Indeed Doherty clashed with White on numerous occasions as the radicals attempted to break the reformist hegemony.
I would also like to highlight that it was people like Johnnie White that helped forge the DCDA with the working class of Derry while JRG and his ivory tower trots sat in their arm chairs lecturing those who do indeed walk the walk.

3. There is one force in society when it is mobilised effectively that Imperialism is incapable of using repression to suppress. That force is a united working class movement. Any widespread community based and democratically organised defence campaign would have nullified the impact of repression.
Indeed but the working class of Ireland was not united in this context.
Indeed one side of the working class was actively par-taking in the ethnic cleansing of the other side.
Since we are debating the defence committees the working class from the fountain and from the waterside even helped the RUC during the battle of the bogside by feeding them, giving them water and even par-taking with the RUC in attacking the working class of Derry.
This pathetic CWI revisionist line that Ireland was some form of united workers Utopia until the Individual terrorists of the likes of the INLA came along is so factually incorrect its laughable.

Indeed any effort by Imperialism to use repression against it could well have precipitated a revolutionary upheaval.
And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

Once the Protestant working class were involved the threat to their very system of capitalism would have stayed the hand of imperialism. Furthermore, the public knowledge of those in the democratic leadership of such committees would actually have protected these individuals as any strike against them would have been clearly demonstrated as a political act by the state. This is not to say they wouldn't have attempted it - but they could never have got away with the scale of repression that was introduced in the North using the IRA campaign as an excuse.
They were involved but in the vast majority of cases with some noteable exceptions were actively par-taking with Loyalist Death Squads and actively par-taking in the ethnic cleansing of working class people in Ireland.
Combined with ethnically cleansing Catholic working class people from their employment places.

The CWI was a very small organisation at the time. It had limited influence and even less money. Those members who were based in the North did participate in these committees and continued to use the same methods to defend workers from paramilitary threats and attacks right up to the ceasefires.
Absolute nonsense and a cop out.
Firstly the IRSM was born out of the Officials as a small organisation with absolutely no funds but yet those original members contributed enormously to the working class struggle.

On numerous occasions members of the Socialist Party organised workers action to force the INLA to withdraw threats against Protestant workers working in the Catholic areas.
Hahaha ridiculous.
Any links for this absolutely bullshit claim?
Fuck it we can both play this game, the INLA also mobilised the working class against CWI inspired death squads ethnically cleansing whole communities.

This is nonsense - to start with the INLA never had any support outside of a couple of hardline ghettos where they were based.
I like the term you use hear "hardline".
These communities were not "hardline" they were merely the most victimised by state brutality, by imperialism and capitalism.
They were the most radical and with the greatest revolutionary potential since the contradictions of capitalism were kicking down their doors and interning their sons every other week.

The IRA had greater support but never anything like 'overwhelming support' - indeed it never even had 'majority support' within the Catholic working class and had none among Protestant workers.
Another blatantly factually incorrect post.
The day the CWI can get 100,000 people on the streets of Belfast I will listen to you but you cant because you are irrelevant to the working class of the occupied countys since they see through your hollow and empty rehttoric.
I would also like to clarify that the CWI not only had no support not only in the Catholic working class but also no support in the Protestant working class.

If you want to address accountablility of republican paramilitaries you need look no further back than the murder of Robert McCartney and the subsequent treatment of his family.
Ohh you mean the same Short Strand area where the PIRA cannot walk down the street without being castigated and abused?
The same Short Strand that has rejected the PIRA and PSF.
Case and point, without the support of the community these organisation cannot exist.

How many members of the INLA were killed during the Troubles (and how many of those were killed in internal feuds?)
By "internal feuds" you are refering to when the Sticks attacked the RSM?
Or when IPLO attacked the RSM?
Your warped and revisionist version of history is fooling nobody.

How many members of the INLA were killed in defending (and I stress defending) working class communities from Loyalist death squads?
After the initial pogroms of 1969 and the early 70's the Loyalist pogroms ceased because of the very presence of the Official and Provisional IRA on the streets.
I would also like to highlight that many of the very same Officials that defended these communitys were indeed RSM members in 1974.

And the INLA never blew up a pub?
Ohh they did, the Droppin Well being an example.

This is nonsense – the reality is that anytime a threat existed that the situation had the potential of slipping over into open and outright sectarian civil war, the working class through the trade unions instinctively moved to prevent it. The best example was the mass demonstrations against sectarian killings in December 1975 and January 1976 in Derry, Newry and Lurgan that forced the NICTU leadership to launch the ‘Better Life for All’ Campaign.
This is utter lies as usual to suite your warped revisionist perspective.
It is so factually incorrect it is laughable.
It was Volunteers of the Official and Provisional Movements that stopped the worst sectarian pogroms.
The likes of "the Battle of St. Mathews" where if it were not for Volunteers there thousands of working class people would have been burned out of their homes just like what happened when the RUC, B-Specials, Loyalist gunmen and Loyalist rioters broke through IRA defences near Divis.
In that one night dozens of houses on Bombay Street and some of the houses on Kashmir Street, Conway Street, Norfolk Street, Cupar Street, Dover Street, Percy Street and Beverly Street were set alight.
These people were ethnically cleansed from their communities.
Just as what was tried at Short Strand and what nearly happened at Ardoyne if it were not for armed Volunteers.
Your referance to the 1976 protests is a perfect example of your complete lack of footing since the worst sectarian violence occured around 1969 and Working class communities were no longer at risk to Loyalist pogroms by 1976 since the PIRA was fully armed along with the INLA.

The only time a situation would arise whereby open sectarian civil war would develop would be following the atomisation of the workers organisations, namely the trade unions. Despite the conflict in the North, not one single trade union split along sectarian lines. Within the trade union movement that comprised of over 200,000 workers, paramilitary organisations from either side of the sectarian divide could never gain a foothold – the working class wouldn’t tolerate it.

Its so factually devoid from reality its almost comical if it were not for the fact that you manipulate historical facts for your own revisionist version of Irish history.
Ever hear of the Ulster Workers Council that brought the Northern statelet to a halt and smashed Sunningdale.

The IRA and the INLA may have been comprised of working class people – that however does not make them working class organisations. The Nazis had a large working class component but that did not make them a working class organisation. What determines the nature of any organisation is its composition, its outlook and its orientation. To be a working class organisation you need to be comprised of working class people, have a class outlook, orientate towards the development of united working class action and be under working class control. The INLA and the IRA may have attacked elements of an Imperialist state but that did not and does not automatically make them anti-imperialist organisations. They did not and do not have a class outlook, did not attempt to develop working class unity and were not and are not under the control of the working class. For any paramilitary force to be classed as a working class organisation it has to be under the democratic control of those it purports to represent. In exactly the same way the loyalist paramilitaries were composed of the working class, but they could not be remotely described as working class organisations. The IRA and the INLA never had any hope of defeating imperialism and provided an opportunity for imperialism and the sectarians to propagandise among the Protestant working class and an excuse for imperialism to impose repression primarily against the Catholic working class.
Typical CWI nonsense.
The INLA was of course comprised of working class people, primarily from the Catholic side but with some noteable Protestant Volunteers.
It defended working class people from Loyalist death squads and fought against Imperialism.
It united the struggle against Imperialism along with the class struggle.
It was of course not democratically controlled by the working class but that is not to say it was not accountable to the working class.
But as was detailed earlier it was unable to have the luxury of free and open democratic elections since the context of Ireland did not make it viable.
Dissapearances of known Radicals was a regular occurance and collusion was in full swing.
To suggest otherwise is just completely devoid of reality of the material context of Ireland.


I was wondering how long it would take you to make this argument. However, you premise is still false. The Catholic community was not faced with oppression by fascism – it was faced with state repression (a repression limited by what the British state could get away with when considering their own working class). Britain was not and is not a fascist state. The conflict in the North was not and is not a conflict against fascism. To make the analogy is simply clutching at straws.
Pathetic attempt at a rehtort.
Where were the British Working class when the British State and its Loyalist degenerates were burning down Bombay street? Where were they when they were be-siegeing short strand or Ardoyne?
Indeed where were the British Working class during British Imperialism brutality towards the African Working class?
Where were the British working class when the systematic slaughter of Indians was under way in which millions died from orchestrated famines?
Where were the British working class when the countless crimes of Imperialism were comitted, up to and including genocide.
Such utter nonsense and completely typical of the CWI.
And secondly the analogy stands due to the principle being solid.
That you side with Imperialism due to impotence is of no surprise to anyone who has read your drivel.
Because you are uncomfortable with that analogy let us use another one, that apparently the ANC's campaign is to blame for the repression of the South African state.
Just because the analogy shows up your glaring contradictions does not mean they are not valid.

Actually most wars of national liberation are fought by the native bourgeois class using and manipulating the working class for their own ends. Wars of national liberation are precisely that – wars to create a nation state. The creation of a nation state on its own serves no purpose for the working class.
No no they are not.
They are fought by the working class in order to emancipate their class from the yolk of imperialism.
Wars of National Liberation are fought in conjunction with the class struggle.
Indeed Lenin stated...

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

Indeed in the current epoch, wars of national liberation are doomed to failure as national liberation is unachievable except as a component part of socialist revolution.
Of course those who advocate National Liberation will argue it is a vital component of Socialist Revolution.


This again is a complete misunderstanding of the situation – any gains won were not won by a paramilitary campaign by republican paramilitaries but by class action primarily as a result of trade union activity. Just because the situation has changed in the North (and not necessarily for the better in many respects) does not mean that it is as a result of the paramilitary campaign. Right throughout the Troubles in the North, trade unions and workers campaigned for rights and reforms for the working class.
More absolute fantasy tails by yourself.
The same union movement that brought the very moderate reforms of the Sunningdale agreement crashing down?
It was the mobilised working class through the likes of the INLA that helped bring the British State to its knees and were forced to intervene in Ireland to grant some level of equality to the working class.
Indeed the force of the paramilitary organsations was used as a veto against Stormont and Westminister when these institution railed against the working class in Ireland.
But as I originally state it was the likes of the INLA that helped achieve this and not ivory tower trots like JRG.

It is the same argument used in the South when the LP and union bureaucrats claim that we would not have equal rights for women if it weren’t for the EU. This automatically implies that women were incapable of campaigning for and achieving reforms. Many reforms were achieved – however it is not possible to point to one single reform in the North that was brought about directly as a result of paramilitarism.
Absurd.
The inability of the state and their minions in Loyalism to subdue the mobilised working class against the state ment that they eventually had to compromise some civil rights and greater social justice to this descriminated minority.
Like I stated earlier achieved through the blood, sweat and tears of the Irish working class including INLA and PIRA volunteers.
Something not to be sneered at.

[Soldier of life]

JRG,

Typical of the CWI, you really have no sense of reality. The defence committees were wonderful in theory, but the prevailing conditions at the time were hardly fertile for a strategy based on them, they would have been easily crushed. We are talking about a nation occupied by imperialist soldiers, backed up by the utterly sectarian RUC and B-Specials, who in turn were made up of and colluded with loyalist paramilitaries. If the struggle progressed with such committees as their focal point, resistance would have been absolutely crushed in no time. Whether that be through repressive legislation or through state violence or state collusion with sectarian armed gangs. The British did a good enough job of infiltrating the IRA, never mind what they would have done to these defence committees. In an ideal world, absolutely go for it, but conditions dictated that a clandestine movement was necessary.

My problem with the IRA and INLA was not that they were conspiratorial. I think pragmatism had to rule the day and their method of organisation was necessary for security and effectiveness. I'm sorry if it doesn't say this was the right approach in some abstract document written nearly a century ago, but these people had to live with the realities of conditions in the North. My issue first of all with the IRA was that they were not socialist, so I suppose where they ended up is quite understandable. The INLA should have known better, and while it did engage in some fine socialist actions, the robbery of furniture lorries, bread vans etc and distributing the contents in working class estates, the blowing up of a communications facility used by NATO, the attacking of scabs transport among many, many examples...but these actions were all too often in isolation, and the INLA should have made more of an effort to bring workers into the struggle. That is not to say they didn't do this at points, a notable example being Mickey Devine's calls for a general strike during the hunger strikes, but not enough of an emphasis was placed on this, something the IRSP now recognises fully and has acted accordingly. Of course JRG would say the CWI knew this all along, but here's the difference, while CWI were concocting their theory at home with a cup of coco in their slippers, INLA volunteer Ta Power was critically analysing the struggle in an imperialist prison, for defying British Tyranny and capitalist oppression in Ireland. CWI were, and always will be, an irrelevance in the North, they are nothing but moralist liberals in Ireland with the odd bit of revolutionary rhetoric. Middle class boys and girls playing.

I remember when I attended a meeting with Joe Higgins speaking on che guevara a while back. Joe somehow could reconcile his repudiation of guerilla tactics in Ireland with supporting it in Cuba, and chuckled at the idea of a revolutionary underground movement emerging in Ireland and perhaps having to take refuge in the Kerry mountains. He seems to forget that while there was a liberation struggle right on his doorstep, engaged in by one of the most effective guerilla movements of the 20th century, the IRA, along with the Marxist INLA, he was sitting on his arse like the rest of CWI discussing the colour of Karl Marx's underwear.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Where were the British Working class when the British State and its Loyalist degenerates were burning down Bombay street? Where were they when they were be-siegeing short strand or Ardoyne?
Indeed where were the British Working class during British Imperialism brutality towards the African Working class?
Where were the British working class when the systematic slaughter of Indians was under way in which millions died from orchestrated famines?
Where were the British working class when the countless crimes of Imperialism were comitted, up to and including genocide.

They were busy trying to take over whole cities, facing tanks, armed forces, working conditions which could be lethal, fighting the reactionary British trade unions movement which Irish republicans seem to have a go at you for not supporting (but the British working-class is reactionary, how very rich) but of course they are all imperialists for being British.

[Andropov]

They were busy trying to take over whole cities, facing tanks, armed forces, working conditions which could be lethal, fighting the reactionary British trade unions movement
So you are actually suggesting that the likes of Red Clydeside was done out of working class solidarity with the working classes suppressed by British Imperialism?
Is that what you are suggesting?

which Irish republicans seem to have a go at you for not supporting (but the British working-class is reactionary, how very rich)
I dont understand this part.

but of course they are all imperialists for being British.
Ridiculous fucking strawman.
If you want to debate with me try and actually put forward a constructive arguement instead of pathetic lines like this.
The sheer chauvanism being advocated here that those under the yoke of imperialism should wait for the working class of the Imperial nation to rise up is astounding.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

So you are actually suggesting that the likes of Red Clydeside was done out of working class solidarity with the working classes suppressed by British Imperialism?
Is that what you are suggesting?

The CPGB offered solidarity at various times and there were massive protests against the British state in solidarity with Irish oppression, loads of anti-war protests.

To whitewash this and call the British working-class reactionary, in nicer times, is obviously based on some sort of ridiculous nationalistic anti-British ideas which are pro-Irish. I on the other hand am both anti-British and Irish nationalism, both kinds of nationalism offer nothing but failure and retardation of the world class struggle.


I dont understand this part.

Marxist-leninists constantly bang on about supporting the British TUC, who were happily trying to sabotage the Limerick soviet, ironic isn't it? Don't lie to me and tell me that Irish republicans don't defend the TUC in various instances.


Ridiculous fucking strawman.
If you want to debate with me try and actually put forward a constructive arguement instead of pathetic lines like this.
The sheer chauvanism being advocated here that those under the yoke of imperialism should wait for the working class of the Imperial nation to rise up is astounding.

Stop talking rubbish, I said no such thing in fact you'll find my favourite figures are both Connolly, Larkin and many others who fought the Irish and British bourgeoisie as workers from Donegal to Cork (or in Connolly's case to the USA).

[Andropov]

The CPGB offered solidarity at various times and there were massive protests against the British state in solidarity with Irish oppression, loads of anti-war protests.
To whitewash this and call the British working-class reactionary, in nicer times, is obviously based on some sort of ridiculous nationalistic anti-British ideas which are pro-Irish. I on the other hand am both anti-British and Irish nationalism, both kinds of nationalism offer nothing but failure and retardation of the world class struggle.
Answer my question, was the British Empire brought to its knees through sympathy strike because of Imperial attrocities in its colonys?
Listing solidarity protests or such demos is irrelevant im afraid because JRG claimed that attrocities would not be committed in Ireland because the British working class would not allow it.

Marxist-leninists constantly bang on about supporting the British TUC, who were happily trying to sabotage the Limerick soviet, ironic isn't it? Don't lie to me and tell me that Irish republicans don't defend the TUC in various instances.
I havent got the foggiest notion of what you are on about so I cannot comment either way.

Stop talking rubbish, I said no such thing in fact you'll find my favourite figures are both Connolly, Larkin and many others who fought the Irish and British bourgeoisie as workers from Donegal to Cork (or in Connolly's case to the USA).
A leftcommunist whose favourite figure is Connolly?
Absurd.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

How mature of you to neg rep me for "resorting to lies", why not link some sources to prove that I've lied about something(s)?


Answer my question, was the British Empire brought to its knees through sympathy strike because of Imperial attrocities in its colonys?

Do you think that working-class disillusionment in Britain had nothing to do with imperial wars? Perhaps that is an easy question to answer your question with, perhaps it will make sense to you or maybe not, but either way your rhetoric of "the British working-class is reactionary" is anti-internationalist, pro-Irish nationalist garbage.


Listing solidarity protests or such demos is irrelevant im afraid because JRG claimed that attrocities would not be committed in Ireland because the British working class would not allow it.

Not sure how this relates to my post? Can't you respond directly to what I've written instead of tangling up my posts with JRG's? But since you asked, anti-war protests were all too common in the 60's and there was a wave, in accordance with the international working-class, against the state.

Additionally, to state that working-class militancy in Britain didn't help the struggle for Irish workers' emancipation is so narrow visioned, really I dont know what to say to you, maybe read more of your favourite figures like Larkin and Connolly and how they were actually internationalist?


I havent got the foggiest notion of what you are on about so I cannot comment either way.

No surprises here then.

[quote]A leftcommunist whose favourite figure is Connolly?
Absurd.

If you have a small world view it might seem absurd, if you only know about Connolly's nationalist achievements and his right-turn towards martyrdom maybe. For others, no, it makes perfect sense. I don't have a favourite figure, everyone central to communist theory and practice did good and bad things and youre blanketing of different communists, from an emotional perspective as being a nationalist or being patriotic is what's really "absurd".

[Andropov]

How mature of you to neg rep me for "resorting to lies", why not link some sources to prove that I've lied about something(s)?
Ok no problem.
You said this...

To whitewash this and call the British working-class reactionary,
I never said that, that is a lie hence why I called you a lier.
If you do not like being called a lier, then dont make up lies.

Do you think that working-class disillusionment in Britain had nothing to do with imperial wars? Perhaps that is an easy question to answer your question with, perhaps it will make sense to you or maybe not, but either way your rhetoric of "the British working-class is reactionary" is anti-internationalist, pro-Irish nationalist garbage.
Yet again dodging the question and making up lies.
Now was the British Empire brought to its knees through sympathy strike because of Imperial attrocities in its colonys?
Simple question that is where the whole debate stems from.

Not sure how this relates to my post? Can't you respond directly to what I've written instead of tangling up my posts with JRG's? But since you asked, anti-war protests were all too common in the 60's and there was a wave, in accordance with the international working-class, against the state.
You are actually an idiot.
That post was in relation to when you posted this...

The CPGB offered solidarity at various times and there were massive protests against the British state in solidarity with Irish oppression, loads of anti-war protests.
Do keep track of the drivel you post.

Additionally, to state that working-class militancy in Britain didn't help the struggle for Irish workers' emancipation is so narrow visioned, really I dont know what to say to you
I never stated that, yet another lie.
Really we can do this all day.
Its either ignorance on your part or deliberate distortion of my posts, either way debate with what I say and stop concoting lies.

maybe read more of your favourite figures like Larkin and Connolly and how they were actually internationalist?
The sheer chauvanistic fucking arrogance of you.
How would you know that Larkin and Connolly are my favourite figures?
Because im Irish aye? The thick paddy wouldnt know anyone else aye?
You chauvanist fuckwit.

If you have a small world view it might seem absurd, if you only know about Connolly's nationalist achievements and his right-turn towards martyrdom maybe.
Written like a true infantile leftist.
I have read all of connollys works.
He was a Marxist Leninist, he made no right turn and he never championed "nationalistic achievments".
He did not toward turn martyrdom, another complete misinterpretation.
Hence why it is so absurd for you to like Connolly because he was everything you are not, he was a Marxist-Leninist not an infanitle leftist.

For others, no, it makes perfect sense.
Comical.

I don't have a favourite figure, everyone central to communist theory and practice did good and bad things and youre blanketing of different communists,
This is enjoyable, making a fool of yourself again with your lies.
Only 5 minutes ago you stated this...

my favourite figures are both Connolly, Larkin
Tripping yourself up in your own lies and contradictions.

from an emotional perspective as being a nationalist or being patriotic is what's really "absurd".
Ahh the chauvanist calling me a "nationalist", classic.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Swearing and generally throwing your toys out the pram, accusing me of lying in pretty much every bit of your post then calling me a chauvinist, wish I had debating skills like that.


I never said that, that is a lie hence why I called you a lier. If you do not like being called a lier, then dont make up lies.

Oh so you haven't implied or inferred it in any of your posts then? Is anyone really supposed to believe that?


Yet again dodging the question and making up lies. Now was the British Empire brought to its knees through sympathy strike because of Imperial attrocities in its colonys? Simple question that is where the whole debate stems from.

Sympathy strikes rarely bring an entire country to its knees? Workers went on strike because of imperialist atrocities in the colonies because of the direct effect it had on workers in Britain, is there something unusual about that?


You are actually an idiot. That post was in relation to when you posted this...

Do keep track of the drivel you post.

Sure you're feeling okay?


I never stated that, yet another lie. Really we can do this all day. Its either ignorance on your part or deliberate distortion of my posts, either way debate with what I say and stop concoting lies.

No you just avoided my first response to you, same difference, answering a question with what's supposed to be a rhetorical question.


The sheer chauvanistic fucking arrogance of you. How would you know that Larkin and Connolly are my favourite figures? Because im Irish aye? The thick paddy wouldnt know anyone else aye? You chauvanist fuckwit.

Yet again more emotional reactions to my posts, actually you say you are an Irish republican so it's not exactly an unfair assumption. Regardless of you being Irish or not, pro-republicans cite Connolly and Larkin as some of their favourite figures too, so before you get emotive about my nationality and your nationality, in future bear that in mind.

As I said, they are some of my favourite figures so why would it be related to your nationality? Don't be so ignorant.


Written like a true infantile leftist. I have read all of connollys works. He was a Marxist Leninist, he made no right turn and he never championed "nationalistic achievments". He did not toward turn martyrdom, another complete misinterpretation. Hence why it is so absurd for you to like Connolly because he was everything you are not, he was a Marxist-Leninist not an infanitle leftist.

You don't have any rational analysis of him beyond what your party has told you do you?


Comical.

This is enjoyable, making a fool of yourself again with your lies. Tripping yourself up in your own lies and contradictions.

And now you're trying to miss out parts of my quotes, making up stuff, actually what I said in full was "you'll find my favourite figures are both Connolly, Larkin and many others who fought the Irish and British bourgeoisie as workers from Donegal to Cork (or in Connolly's case to the USA)." and you'll find that this is consistent with not having a favourite figure (read favourite and favouriteS). I really don't know what your problem is, maybe you are trying to be difficult, awkward and irritating on purpose.


Ahh the chauvanist calling me a "nationalist", classic.

Are you or aren't you a nationalist?

[Jolly Red Giant]

I am not going to address all the nonsense in these posts - but I will deal with some of them, as the points are actually important in realtion to the North


They were of course tiny outside of the DCDA and to suggest otherwise is only historical revisionism and factually incorrect.
The local defence committees were vitally important in preventing pogroms as they were primarily based on trade union activists. The potential for pogroms existed - the pogroms didn't happen, for a number of reasons, including the existance of local defence committees. The emergence of republican paramilitary groups was not the most important factor, nor in many areas not even a positive development in preventing them.



How effective was these "industrial defence committees"?
Numbers, equipment and engagements please?
Once again you bring everything down to guns - for you its a case of 'if you don't shoot someone then you are not defending anything'.

The loyalist paramilitaries had a base in a number of large workplaces including the shipyards. Without the active 'engagement' of the trade union 'defence' committees (which were established in order to prevent sectarian attacks) many Catholic workers would have been shot and the rest would have been driven out of their workplace. The power of organised workers can be infinitely more effective than a paramilitary standing at a street corner with an AK47. I will deal with this further below.



Conservatives like Paddy Doherty even went as far as to ban the likes of Bernadette Devlin from Free Derry in order to cement his control over the DCDA since Bernadette was constantly undermining some of the reformist leaders by radicalising the youth of Derry.
Both Eamonn McCann and Bernadette Devlin played straight into his hands by issuing a joint statement headed ‘Westminster must act’ calling for the suspension of the northern constitution and a constitutional conference of the Westminster, Stormont and Dublin governments to work out a solution. Devlin went to U Thant looking for troops to be deployed.

The SWP went further criticising anyone opposed to the deployment of the British army-
‘The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists.’



Indeed one side of the working class was actively par-taking in the ethnic cleansing of the other side.
The is utter and complete bullshit and an disgraceful slur on the vast majority of working class Protestants.


Since we are debating the defence committees the working class from the fountain and from the waterside even helped the RUC during the battle of the bogside by feeding them, giving them water and even par-taking with the RUC in attacking the working class of Derry.
The most influenctial element in the defence of the Bogside was the Derry Young Socialists who took the lead in manning the barracades and in running Radio Free Derry. Liam de Paor in his book 'Divided Ulster' recorded: "The brunt of the street fighting has been borne not by any traditional nationalist element, but by the Young Socialists who have shown great courage." And guess what - the Derry Young Socialists comprised of Protestants as well as Catholics.

In Belfast ordinary workers formed defence organisations to guard their areas. Non-sectarian 'Peace Patrols' sprung up in Ardoyne, Ballymurphy, Springhill, Turf Lodge, New Barnsley, Springmartin, Highfield and Clonard. A leaflet circulated by workers in the Dock ward of Belfast was typical of the stance taken by workers, proclaiming: "All the Protestant and Catholic neighbours are still on the most friendly terms and if any outsiders attempt to come in and disrupt this harmony, they will be ordered out of the area."

The most crucial stand was taken by workers at Harland and Wolff, not surprising given its role in the 1920 pogrom. On August 14th, stewards called a mass meeting - out of a total workforce of 9,000, 8,000 took part and voted overwhelmingly not to join in the sectarian madness. Joint Catholic and Protestant workers groups 'patrolled' the shipyards to ensure the safety of all the workers and Protestant shop stewards then visited Catholic workers who had stayed away, ensuring them of their safety at work and urging them to return to work.

The strategy of republican paramilitaries was different - it wasn't to create safe areas for the working class - it was to create safe areas for Catholics. Yes the majority of attacks were directed at the Catholic working class - but not all attacks were and the Protestant working class was entitled to live without fear of sectarian violence just as well.




They were involved but in the vast majority of cases with some noteable exceptions were actively par-taking with Loyalist Death Squads and actively par-taking in the ethnic cleansing of working class people in Ireland.
Combined with ethnically cleansing Catholic working class people from their employment places.
Isn't it interesting that despite the IRSM's claim to want to build a united working class movement - you continue to spout this nonsense and systematically dismiss the Protestant working class as one homogeneous reactionary blob. For you - working class unity means all workers - except Protestant workers.



Any links for this absolutely bullshit claim?
Ask Billy Lynn who spent more time as a union rep in NIPSA organising solidarity action to force the withdrawl of threats from republican and loyalist paramilitaries - and yes the INLA were the most active. Anytime sectarianism flared up the INLA were to the fore in threatening Protestant workers working in DHSS offices or Housing offices.



Ohh you mean the same Short Strand area where the PIRA cannot walk down the street without being castigated and abused?
The same Short Strand that has rejected the PIRA and PSF.
Case and point, without the support of the community these organisation cannot exist.
The exact same Short Strand where Robert McCartney's family were force to leave because of the behaviour of republican paramilitaries.


By "internal feuds" you are refering to when the Sticks attacked the RSM?
Or when IPLO attacked the RSM?

Its always someone's elses fault isn't it? The INLA very never involved in a feud they just shot people they used to work with.

I also note that you actually didn't back up your claim that INLA members shed their blood protecting working class communities from Loyalist death squads - and of coruse the reason is quite simple - because they didn't. The vast majority of the INLA's campaign activities were based on (often indiscriminately) attacking other people (including Protestant workers)


Dropping Well
Yes indeed, including killing six civilians - And this was the INLA statement -
"We believe that it is only attacks of such a nature that bring it home to people in Britain and the British establishment. The shooting of an individual soldier, for the people of Britain, has very little effect in terms of the media or in terms of the British administration."

Shooting one soldier wasn't enough - the INLA wanted mass terror.



Your referance to the 1976 protests is a perfect example of your complete lack of footing since the worst sectarian violence occured around 1969 and Working class communities were no longer at risk to Loyalist pogroms by 1976 since the PIRA was fully armed along with the INLA.
To start with the highest death tool was in 1972 when nearly 500 people were killed - with almost three quarters of them civilians. If you knew anything about the nature of the violence in the North you would know that 1975 was the height of sectarian reaction and the worse sectarian violence in the North. Tit-for-tat sectarian killings were occurring with increasing regularity in 1974 and 1975. There was a significant danger in late 1975 that the situation in the North would slide into an open sectarian civil war. Organised workers acted to prevent it - just as they have done on numerous other occasions.



Ever hear of the Ulster Workers Council that brought the Northern statelet to a halt and smashed Sunningdale.
And once again you point the finger of Protestant workers. What it actually demonstrates is the fact that you have little understanding of what happened around the UWC strike. The strike never had the support of anything more than a small minority of the Protestant working class. When it was initally called the vast majority of Protestant workers ignored the call. There were two reasons it succeeded in its objective - 1. The shut down of the Ballylumford power station which caused widespread power cuts, with workplaces closing and workers being sent home - and 2. widespread intimidation of Protestant workers by loyalist paramilitaries. However the influence of the UWC was limited - they issued a call for an all-out general strike of Protestant workers to begin on 19 May only to withdraw the call when they realised it wouldn't be supported. Within weeks of the strike the UWC fell apart and when they tried it again in 1977 it failed miserably.



Where were the British Working class when the British State and its Loyalist degenerates were burning down Bombay street? Where were they when they were be-siegeing short strand or Ardoyne?
Indeed where were the British Working class during British Imperialism brutality towards the African Working class?
Where were the British working class when the systematic slaughter of Indians was under way in which millions died from orchestrated famines?
Where were the British working class when the countless crimes of Imperialism were comitted, up to and including genocide.
So now - not only are the Protestant working class to be written off - so too is the entire British working class. It absolutely astonishes me that you could actually call yourself a Marxist. You have no understanding about how society works, no understanding about the nature of the working class, no understanding about class consciousness, no understanding about internationalism and clearly no understanding about Marxism.



Because you are uncomfortable with that analogy let us use another one, that apparently the ANC's campaign is to blame for the repression of the South African state.
Just because the analogy shows up your glaring contradictions does not mean they are not valid.
Again you demonstrate no understanding of Marxism - and we can use the analogy of the ANC. The perpetrators of repression in the North were and continue to be British Imperialism. The perpetrators of repression in South Africa during apartheid was the apartheid regime. The tactics of the INLA were and continue to be wrong. The tactics of 'armed struggle' of the ANC were wrong. In the North, individual terror contributed to facilitating British imperialism's use of repression.

In South Africa the campaign of the ANC facilitated the apartheid regime's use of repression and terror against the South African working class (not that they really needed it). However, bad as repression is - it is not the key issue. The apartheid regime in South Africa was not brought down by the 'armed struggle' of the ANC - it was brought down through the mobilisation of millions of black workers in COSATU.

In the same way that republican paramilitaries contributed to sectarian violence - it was the trade unions in the North that stopped the slide to sectarian civil war. In South Africa individual terror was an out-dated mode of struggle. It removed the best working class activists from communities, it demoted working class mobilisation to a secondary place behind the military campaign and it failed in its objectives. COSATU was formed in 1986 as a radical left-wing (in the case of some unions, far-left) trade union federation. It posed a direct threat not only to the apartheid - but to the very existance of capitalism itself. Very quickly the developing consciousness of the workers spilled over into the ANC. This terrified the leadership of the ANC just as much as Pretoria. It is inevitable when an undemocratic paramilitary force is given predominance that the socailist revolution will be pushed onto the back-burner. It happened in South Africa and it would happen in Ireland if the IRSM ever got into a similar situation.



Indeed Lenin stated...
You are not seriously going to quote Lenin to me - how about this one -
"The history of the Russian revolution shows that a party always resorts to individual terror when it does not enjoy the support of the masses."



It was the mobilised working class through the likes of the INLA that helped bring the British State to its knees and were forced to intervene in Ireland to grant some level of equality to the working class.
This is absolute horse manure. The working class of the North do not have 'equality'. The working class of the North, Catholic and Protestant, are more exploited now than at any time in history. The social, economic and political well-being of working class people in the North has not advance one iota since 1969. Financially, some sections of the working class are better off - but taken as a whole the working class is in a worse situation now than at any time.



The inability of the state and their minions in Loyalism to subdue the mobilised working class against the state ment that they eventually had to compromise some civil rights and greater social justice to this descriminated minority.
Crucial point here - the initial stages of the Civil Rights movement was about class issues - it was about 'jobs for all' - 'housing for all' - education for all' etc. All that has happened has been some minor re-distribution of material circumstances among the working class - a crumb from the table taken from one worker and given to another. I'll give you a quote from someone that would have been a prominent supporter of the IRSM - "We realised that, however nicely we put it, more jobs for Catholics meant less jobs for Protestants. That was a realistic fear of theirs."

It is nonsense to say that the Catholic working class have 'greater social justice' when there is still mass unemployment, exploitation, a vicious austerity package on the way and the working class now live in a society where the vast majority of people live in sectarian territory lined out with green, white and orange kerbs or red white and blue ones.



Like I stated earlier achieved through the blood, sweat and tears of the Irish working class including INLA and PIRA volunteers.
Something not to be sneered at.
There is one thing that is clearly lacking in the political understanding of the members of the IRSM - and it is a crucial inadequacy in the political outlook of both yourself and every other member of the IRSM that I have ever come in contact with. The IRSM has absolutely no understanding of the key importance of trade union organisation and united working class mobilisation and action through their democratic bodies. This lack of understanding is a serious deficit in the outlook of the IRSM and leads it to make fundementally wrong decisions in terms of political orientation and tactics. It is the reason why you have repeatedly in your post dismissed both the Protestant working class in the North and the British working class as reactionary. It is a false premise and it impacts on everything you do from that point on.

The only reason that the North did not slide into sectarian civil war over the past 40 years was because the trade union movement remained united and representative of both Catholic and Protestant workers. It has been crucial to defending workers in the workplace and in forcing paramilitaries from both sides into backing away from sectarian violence.

There have been occasions where republican paramilitaries have prevented sectarian attacks in the Catholic community - there have even been occasions when loyalist paramilitaries have prevented sectarian attacks in the Protestant community. However, practically all the major sectarian attacks that have been inflicted on the working class in the North through the history of the Troubles have been inflicted by paramilitaries (be they republican or loyalist). If neither buch of paramilitaries didn't attack the other community there would be no need for defence from paramilitaries. It took 30 years for the paramilitaries to figure it out.

The only organisation that has stood up and stopped sectarian attacks on the working class as a whole has been the trade union movement. Whether it has been individual workplaces striking against paramilitary threats, strikes in response to paramilitary killings or mass demonstrations against paramilitary violence - the only organisation that from day one has refused to be dragged down the sectarian route, the only organisation that stood up against all paramilitaries in the defence of all workers has been the trade union movement.

You have attempted to ridicule the CWI in the North, claiming it has no support. The CWI may not have a base of any real size within the sectarian territories that the paramilitaries have created (although it does have more support and influence than you would admit to) - but it does have significant influence in the trade union movement. The CWI plays an enormously influential role in NIPSA, has leading elected representatives in the FBU and the CWU (among the most left-wing unions on these islands) and has significant influence in many other workplace unions. CWI members in the past have held senior shop-steward positions in Shorts (a Catholic) and in the shipyards (both Catholic and Protestant).

Despite its small size the CWI has been a key influence in forcing the trade union bureaucracy to establish the 'Better Life for All' Campaign - initiated the 'No Going Back' Campaign - and has been responsible through its trade union positions in organising strikes, demonstrations, protests etc against paramilitary (and state) violence and threats targetted against workers. The CWI has been fortunate in that it has not seen a member of the CWI killed as a result of defending workers within the trade union movement - but it has had members shot at by paramilitaries for organising strike action against paramilitaries, have been beaten up for their activities and many members have received threats for their trade union activity. So you condescending attitude that you are not a real revolutionary unless you stand at a street corner with an AK47 doesn't wash (actually the reality for paramilitaries is more like hiding behind a wall to ambush an unsuspecting victim).

Revolution is not about shooting people (state forces or not - former comrades or not) and blowing up pubs. It serves no useful purpose and it undermines the necessary work that has to happen to unite the working class.

The IRSM would be blissfully unaware of this because it has literally zero influence within the trade union movement - either in the North or in the South. In terms of the development of the workers movement in the North, the trade unions hold the key - and the CWI has and will continue to play an important role through the positions it wins within the trade union movement and the strategy it influences.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Regardless of you being Irish or not, pro-republicans cite Connolly and Larkin as some of their favourite figures
Republicans rarely cite Larkin in their eulogies - he wasn't in the GPO in 1916.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I remember when I attended a meeting with Joe Higgins speaking on che guevara a while back. Joe somehow could reconcile his repudiation of guerilla tactics in Ireland with supporting it in Cuba, and chuckled at the idea of a revolutionary underground movement emerging in Ireland
I think it is necessary to have a clean out of your ears. Joe Higgins would not have stated his support for guerrillaism in Cuba - he would have stated that it existed and it played a role in the overthrow of Batista - but that the key factor in abolishing capitalism was the working class through strike action. Castro and the 26th July Movement never set out to overthrow capitalism - it was forced to as the working class moved into action to protect its interests. You would have also heard him criticise Che for going to Bolivia.

Guerrillaism is past its sell-by-date - there is practically no-where in the world where it can play a positive role. It is the method of struggle of the peasantry. I don't know enough about the situation in Nepal, but the Maoists could potentially overthrow capitalism andset up a deformed workers state for a limited period - but - in contrast - the Naxalites in India are not playing a progressive role.

Individual terror or urban guerillaism is even more of a hinderence to the workers movement. It never played a positive role and continues to do more harm than good - it is a mistaken tactic, one that was rejected by Marx 150 years ago and only plays a counter-productive role in the class struggle.

[Optiow]

To be honest, I hope they aren't. Fighting imperialism is all good, but hurting innocent people (even if they are British) with bombs is not right. Blowing up capitalists is fine, but what if they are killing pro-Irish people in their bombs? There is no way of knowing.

~Note: I do not know much about the IRA factions, and so I apologize for generalizing. I am speaking about the ones who think bombing everything is the best thing for Ireland.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I am speaking about the ones who think bombing everything is the best thing for Ireland.
That was an is pretty much all of them (at least the ones with Semtex).

Shooting two pizza delivery men because they happened to be delivering a pizza to two soldiers and them claiming they were 'legitimate targets' pretty much sums up the futility of guerrillaism.

Real IRA claimed the pizza delivery workers were legitimate targets, saying they were "British collaborators".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hero-soldier-shielded-pizza-boy-from-real-ira-assassins-1666779.html

[Andropov]

Swearing and generally throwing your toys out the pram, accusing me of lying in pretty much every bit of your post then calling me a chauvinist, wish I had debating skills like that.
Pointing out the blatant lies in your posts is not throwing the toys out of the pram, it is what it is, showing the blatant lies you have concoted.

Oh so you haven't implied or inferred it in any of your posts then? Is anyone really supposed to believe that?
And now we have the backtrack from your lies.
You stated this...

To whitewash this and call the British working-class reactionary,
And now apparently I have just "implied" or "inferred" it.
Shown up to be a lier now, backracking out of your web of lies wont help you.

Sympathy strikes rarely bring an entire country to its knees? Workers went on strike because of imperialist atrocities in the colonies because of the direct effect it had on workers in Britain, is there something unusual about that?
Your not answering my question again.
And again I will put the question to you.
Now was the British Empire brought to its knees through sympathy strike because of Imperial attrocities in its colonys?
Answer the question and stop avoiding it.

Sure you're feeling okay?
How odd.
You ask for the relevance of the quote and I clearly demonstrated its relevance and then you ask am I feeling ok, how odd.

No you just avoided my first response to you, same difference, answering a question with what's supposed to be a rhetorical question.
You have yet to show where I stated that the "the British working-class is reactionary"?
Now until you show me where I allegedly stated that your lies will not fly.
But then again you did awkwardly shift your position there saying that I "inferred" or "implied" it, backtracking from your lies.

Yet again more emotional reactions to my posts, actually you say you are an Irish republican so it's not exactly an unfair assumption.
I call myself a Marxist-Leninst, I have never called myself an Irish Republican.
The arrogance of you is astounding.
More of your Chauvanism.

Regardless of you being Irish or not, pro-republicans cite Connolly and Larkin as some of their favourite figures too, so before you get emotive about my nationality and your nationality, in future bear that in mind.
No they dont.
They fact that you made a wide assumption based on your own ignorance changes nothing, it merely highlights your own chauvanism that you have such archaic stereotypes about Irish Socialists.

As I said, they are some of my favourite figures so why would it be related to your nationality? Don't be so ignorant.
Your assumptions that you think you know who my favourite figures are or what I call myself is the ignorance, it is pure chauvanism that you think you know my political perspectives without asking just because of my nationality.

You don't have any rational analysis of him beyond what your party has told you do you?
Like I said I have read all of his works.
Not party made statements, his actual works hence why I find it comical that an infantile leftists quotes him as his favourite leftist.
He despised people like you.

And now you're trying to miss out parts of my quotes, making up stuff, actually what I said in full was "you'll find my favourite figures are both Connolly, Larkin and many others who fought the Irish and British bourgeoisie as workers from Donegal to Cork (or in Connolly's case to the USA)." and you'll find that this is consistent with not having a favourite figure (read favourite and favouriteS). I really don't know what your problem is, maybe you are trying to be difficult, awkward and irritating on purpose.
Nice try to get out of that lie.
As posters here have read you have posted this...

I don't have a favourite figure, everyone central to communist theory and practice did good and bad things and youre blanketing of different communists,
only to be followed by this....

my favourite figures are both Connolly, Larkin

Are you or aren't you a nationalist?
Of course im not a nationalist, still doesnt hide your chauvanism.

[Hoggy_RS]

Republicans rarely cite Larkin in their eulogies - he wasn't in the GPO in 1916.

Funny that considering one of the best known Republican flute bands is the James Larkin Flute band from Liverpool.

[Soldier of life]

Funny that considering one of the best known Republican flute bands is the James Larkin Flute band from Liverpool.


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

A video of former IRSP Political Secretary Gerry Ruddy, paying tribute to James Larkin at a mural unveiling for the Dockers' Strike.

When it comes to republicans, JRG is the revleft equivalent of the Sunday World.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

At the end of the day, your silly attempts at showing me up to be a liar are absolutely pathetic, as are your attempts at smearing me as being a "chauvinistic Brit", it's really wonderful how low you've stooped and then said you haven't inferred or implied anything. I can't be bothered to respond anymore because this is going round in circles. All I can recommend is that you look at the history of communist struggle in Ireland and Britain, watching out for everything I've mentioned, maybe then you will begin to understand just how far away from the real arena of workers' struggles you and your politics are and always have been.

Have a nice weekend.

[Adi Shankara]

Troubles are going to end up starting all over again.

This just happened today, it's a miracle no children were killed:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/14/northern.ireland.bomb/?hpt=T2

[Jolly Red Giant]

Funny that considering one of the best known Republican flute bands is the James Larkin Flute band from Liverpool.
Hoggy - you do know the difference between these two words?

'rarely'

and

'never'

:thumbup1:

[Hoggy_RS]

Hoggy - you do know the difference between these two words?

'rarely'

and

'never'

:thumbup1:

Nope, could you go into more detail?

[BLACKPLATES]

it was not within the scope of IRA action, or thier goal to "eliminate imperialism", only to gain independence from British rule, right?

[Soldier of life]

Hoggy - you do know the difference between these two words?

'rarely'

and

'never'

:thumbup1:

Quote from an IRSM speech:

''We will not simply respect the memory of Seamus Costello; we will live it. We have come to this grave-side today to say to the world at large, we are the children of Connolly, of Larkin, of Costello''.

Quote from an IRSM article:

''Founded on 10 December 1974, it is the best embodiment in Ireland today of the political tendency of which William Thompson, Fintan Lalor, James Stephens, J.P. McDonnell, James Connolly (http://www.irelandsown.net/jamesconnolly.htm), Jim Larkin (http://www.irelandsown.net/larkin.html), Peadar O Donnell (http://www.irelandsown.net/odonnell.html), Frank Ryan, Mick Price, Nora Connolly-O Brien (http://www.irelandsown.net/Nora.htm) were a part'

Quote from an IRSM article remembering Larkin, Connolly and 1913:

''This year, 2009, is the 96th anniversary of the 1913 Dublin Lockout. The lockout started at the Dublin United Tramways Company owned by William Martin Murphy, an Irish Nationalist MP. Murphy was also head of the Employers Federation (forerunner of todays IBEC) which represented 400 employers. In oppossition to Murphy and his draconian rules were the Irish Transport and General Workers Union led by Jim Larkin and James Connolly along with 36 other trade unions.''

Quotes from an IRSM May Day statement:

''They stand in the tradition reaching back to William Thompson, who Marx cited in Capitol, and O Brien of the Chartists. Their lineage includes Fintan Lalor, James Stephens, John Devoy, J.P. McDonnell, Samuel Kavanagh, Michael Davitt, Jim Larkin, James Connolly, Liam Mellowes, Peadar O Donnell, George Gilmore, Mick Price, and Frank Ryan.''

Quote from IRSP statement:

''The stance of Irish ferries and the Government is backed up by the Independent Group of newspapers owned by media mogul, Tony O’Reilly. This is the same group of newspapers that supported Dublin employers during the famous lockout of Dublin workers in 1913 when the workers were led by Jim Larkin and James Connolly.''



How many more examples would you like JRG, the American branch of our movement showed how highly they rate and respect Larkin when they inserted his name into their very constitution.

As I said, keep reading the Sunday World, you really haven't got a clue.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Quote from an IRSM speech:

''We will not simply respect the memory of Seamus Costello; we will live it. We have come to this grave-side today to say to the world at large, we are the children of Connolly, of Larkin, of Costello''.

Quote from an IRSM article:

''Founded on 10 December 1974, it is the best embodiment in Ireland today of the political tendency of which William Thompson, Fintan Lalor, James Stephens, J.P. McDonnell, James Connolly (http://www.irelandsown.net/jamesconnolly.htm), Jim Larkin (http://www.irelandsown.net/larkin.html), Peadar O Donnell (http://www.irelandsown.net/odonnell.html), Frank Ryan, Mick Price, Nora Connolly-O Brien (http://www.irelandsown.net/Nora.htm) were a part'

Quote from an IRSM article remembering Larkin, Connolly and 1913:

''This year, 2009, is the 96th anniversary of the 1913 Dublin Lockout. The lockout started at the Dublin United Tramways Company owned by William Martin Murphy, an Irish Nationalist MP. Murphy was also head of the Employers Federation (forerunner of todays IBEC) which represented 400 employers. In oppossition to Murphy and his draconian rules were the Irish Transport and General Workers Union led by Jim Larkin and James Connolly along with 36 other trade unions.''

Quotes from an IRSM May Day statement:

''They stand in the tradition reaching back to William Thompson, who Marx cited in Capitol, and O Brien of the Chartists. Their lineage includes Fintan Lalor, James Stephens, John Devoy, J.P. McDonnell, Samuel Kavanagh, Michael Davitt, Jim Larkin, James Connolly, Liam Mellowes, Peadar O Donnell, George Gilmore, Mick Price, and Frank Ryan.''

Quote from IRSP statement:

''The stance of Irish ferries and the Government is backed up by the Independent Group of newspapers owned by media mogul, Tony O’Reilly. This is the same group of newspapers that supported Dublin employers during the famous lockout of Dublin workers in 1913 when the workers were led by Jim Larkin and James Connolly.''



How many more examples would you like JRG, the American branch of our movement showed how highly they rate and respect Larkin when they inserted his name into their very constitution.

As I said, keep reading the Sunday World, you really haven't got a clue.
Wow - another member of the IRSM with a less than comprehensive grasp of the English language. It must be an anti-Brit thing :cool:

[Soldier of life]

Wow - another member of the IRSM with a less than comprehensive grasp of the English language. It must be an anti-Brit thing :cool:

Wow, a middle class twat who has been proved to not know his arse from his elbow. The IRSM have consistently mentioned Larkin in speeches, documents, at commemorations etc

As I said, keep reading the Sunday World, forward to the online revolution.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Wow, a middle class twat who has been proved to not know his arse from his elbow. The IRSM have consistently mentioned Larkin in speeches, documents, at commemorations etc


I will provide the quote to you from earlier in the thread -

Republicans rarely cite Larkin in their eulogies

Now -
1. 'rarely' does not mean 'never'

2. I didn't know that the IRSM claimed to be the only (one and true) 'Republicans' on the block.

You can continue with your infantile insults - but I suggest that you actually read and comprehend what you are attempting to rebuke - otherwise you are only demnonstrating your own ignorance.

[Soldier of life]

Republicans rarely cite Larkin in their eulogies - he wasn't in the GPO in 1916.

This is exactly what you said JRG. Using the term 'republicans' like this is all-encompassing and it refuses to differentiate between different republican groups. The IRSM has, since its foundation, consistently spoke in glowing terms of Jim Larkin. In fact if you ask many irps, like myself, they would tell you that in many ways 1913 was much more significant of an event in Ireland than 1916. What you are doing with that overly simplistic and flippant comment is branding all republicans as the same. They are not. A number of republican groups would indeed rarely mention Larkin. The IRSP however are a different story, I have offered examples to back this up, and you should have made the distinction between traditionalism and socialist republicanism. To say that 'republicans' rarely cite Larkin is wrong, in that it implies all republicans do not.

[Jolly Red Giant]

SoL - Hoggy's response was much more succinct - you should learn from his example.

[Soldier of life]

SoL - Hoggy's response was much more succinct - you should learn from his example.

Hoggy just mentioned a fluteband, which in my opinion did not rebuke the argument you made about republicans 'rarely' citing Larkin. So as opposed to one example, I gave you numerous ones, therefore more effectively rebuking your point.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Hoggy just mentioned a fluteband, which in my opinion did not rebuke the argument you made about republicans 'rarely' citing Larkin. So as opposed to one example, I gave you numerous ones, therefore more effectively rebuking your point.
SoL - you really do need to get a better command of the English language. I said nothing about Hoggy rebuking anything - I said his response was more 'succinct' - look it up in a dictionary. :rolleyes:

[Soldier of life]

SoL - you really do need to get a better command of the English language. I said nothing about Hoggy rebuking anything - I said his response was more 'succinct' - look it up in a dictionary. :rolleyes:


I know what it means darling, however some arguments require a longer response when one wishes to illustrate their points with examples. I know using facts may be a foreign concept for you. I'd cancel the sub to the Sunday World if I were you, now can you comprehend what I'm saying.

You were wrong to make such a broad statement that made reference to all republicans, socialist republicans are quite different to traditionalists.