Could "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland start up all over again? Is it justified? [Archive]

Black_Flag

15th August 2010, 01:52

On the question of could they start up again, one majot factor, in my opinion, will be the response of the "security forces" if further attacks continue. At the the minute i'd say that the majority of the n.i population are against the actions of dissidents, however, as we have seen throughout history, public opinion has often been swayed towards favouring such actions and increasing support for the republican cause by the state forces' response to such groups.

Take for example, in the aftermath of The Easter Rising, executing the leaders turned a public who were once hostile towars the rebels towards supporting them. Or whilst the British Army imposed internment and raided the houses of innocent people it turned the nationalist population even more so against them. Also, the actions of the Army during Bloody Sunday, after which many turned to the IRA and it's numbers greatly swelled.

So, basically, i think that they way in which the PSNI respond to the actions of dissident groups will have a major factor in determining if support for them will grow, which in turn could lead to the outbreak of further violence.

Of course, there are a myriad of other factors and reason as to why the troubles could flare up again, this is just one that i can think of for now.

Also, whats the relevance of the video?

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 02:10

It could start again, is it justified? Not really, innocent people will die for little more than a different brand of Christianity.

Black_Flag

15th August 2010, 02:17

It could start again, is it justified? Not really, innocent people will die for little more than a different brand of Christianity.

Agreed, no way is it worth it. Obviously religion plays a part, but its not merely for a different brand of Christianity.

Adi Shankara

15th August 2010, 06:05

It could start again, is it justified? Not really, innocent people will die for little more than a different brand of Christianity.

Ireland has been occupied and subdued for the better part of a thousand years. it's little to do with Christianity. many of the IRA were atheist Marxists as well. don't forget that.

MagÃ³n

15th August 2010, 06:27

Ireland has been occupied and subdued for the better part of a thousand years. it's little to do with Christianity. many of the IRA were atheist Marxists as well. don't forget that.

Key word being were in that post. Back in 1916 and 1919-21, they were probably Atheist's mostly, but nowadays with the Provisional IRA, RIRA, or whatever they're calling themselves these days, aren't what the real IRA in 1916 and 1919-21 was. Nowadays, it's got largely to do with Christianity. Mostly between the Catholics and Protestants who are having a sort of political holy war of sorts between who's Christian God is truer than the others. Those stuck in the middle are just there, stuck in the middle.

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 09:08

Saorsa

15th August 2010, 13:11

ContrarianLemming

15th August 2010, 13:25

They reek of nationalism and patriotism.

it depends what they do

I've never seen anyone on this forum point out negatively how the iRA has deliberatly attacked civilian targets.
I also find it peculiar how people describe it as a british occupation, you'd think the military holds the whole "irish" population by the neck, disregarding the complexities of the matter, like how more then half the population does not desire to join the south.

The whole thing just reeks of the whole "they oppose imperialism so we must support them, if you don't support them then you must be pro imperialism" - which I have actually gotten on this forum a bunch of times because I oppose the IRA.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 13:35

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

15th August 2010, 14:13

I voted absolutely. Ireland has been occupied, exploited and subdued by British imperialism for centuries, and when the Irish finally achieved their freedom, the British imperialisls succeeded in keeping one last stronghold on the isle.
Ireland is not Great-Britain, the British do not have any right to occupy a piece of a sovereign island state. Therefore I completely support the Unionist cause.
However, while the IRA would have all right to wage the struggle they are waging, the death of innocent civilians is off course completely unacceptable.
In regards to Ireland I mostly support the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) and its armed wing the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJUooNzp2Mg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MJh-0Wf7v4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHltQhOjHhs

human strike

15th August 2010, 14:19

These splinter groups are only reemerging due to the success with which peaceful politics has been pursued by the majority in Northern Ireland. It's a sign of desperation. The fact is few will side with them when they still have faith, rightly or wrongly, in the established political process. Was voter turnout not very high in the elections?

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 14:25

They reek of nationalism and patriotism.

it depends what they do

I've never seen anyone on this forum point out negatively how the iRA has deliberatly attacked civilian targets.

Do you have trouble reading? There are hundreds of threads on Revleft about Ireland, and you'll always find a bunch of folks detailing the countless atrocities that the IRA and others have committed. On Revleft, you may very well get the idea that the IRA are the biggest threat to civilisation as we know it.

I also find it peculiar how people describe it as a british occupation, you'd think the military holds the whole "irish" population by the neck, disregarding the complexities of the matter, like how more then half the population does not desire to join the south. .

This. Too many posters seem to ignore the detalis of this issue and boil it down to IRA=good, Brits=Evil. For those who support the IRA, should all the NIrish of British decent be deported back to mainland UK?

Both of these quotes completely miss the point. Of course nobody should be deported. The problem is that massive amounts of settlers were basically shipped into that part of Ireland a long time ago. They were always strongly empowered and privileged by British rule. Exactly this part was cut off from the rest of Ireland, with the idea that the population "opted" to stay as part of the UK. It was basically nothing but gerrymandering.

When it comes to "disregarding the complexities of the matter", it is the above that people often conveniently forget when discussing the Ireland question. As if Northern Ireland is somehow a "legitimate" state, where good old Protestant workers were just minding their own business, enjoying being part of the UK, until the bloody nationalists came along and started shooting people. The fact is that an "occupation" does not simply mean marching in with an army. You can also do it very effectively by basically bribing part of the population. British imperialism has perfected this, not only in Ireland, but also in other places that it once held.

So no, of course nobody should be deported for being British, and of course it's more difficult than "good IRA" and "evil Brits". But you'd have to be really in denial to prevent that the current state of affairs is somehow fair, that the partition of Ireland is okay because a privileged minority within Ireland was allowed to separate itself and "choose" to stay part of Britain. Nobody should be deported for being British or Protestant, but there will always be those who insist on their "right" to march with orange flags. It would definitely be for the better if they were made to fuck off in the end.

It's very convenient to ignore all this and use the poor little Protestant workers as a kind of human shield for British imperialism. It's the same with all these discussions. Like with Palestine: "What, you want to destroy Israel? Why do you want to drive all the Jews into the sea? Do you want them gassed too?" "Reparations for indigenous people? What, you want white people today to pay for crimes they didn't commit?" It's all a load of bullshit and it completely misses the point. It's basically the most disingenuous line that some on the left keep trying to use.

Tifosi

15th August 2010, 14:47

Ireland is not Great-Britain, the British do not have any right to occupy a piece of a sovereign island state. Therefore I completely support the Unionist cause.

I guess most of your Unionist comrades agree:p

Revy

15th August 2010, 17:56

No, and no.

My problem is not with the concept of Irish reunification, which I support. It's with the barbaric groups that often terrorize the communities in the name of this concept. But judging by their actions as of late, they don't give a shit about that anymore, they have bigger fish to fry.

The IRA now act as vigilantes (http://socialistworker.org/2010/06/25/derry-drug-squad-vigilantes), judge, jury and executioner for petty crimes such as drugs. Yep, they're combating non-violent crimes with good ol' beat-downs and shootings. That's your "revolutionary" nationalists at work. And some here would trust them to run an entire country? I'll take socialism over barbarism, thank you very much.

aty

15th August 2010, 19:57

Yes it is justified, military action against an occupation-force is always legitimate. The new groups such as 32CSM, RNU, Eirigi also seems to be much more socialist than the sell-out Sinn Fein ever was.

This is not the second bomb this month it is more like the sixth, it has also been booby-trap bombs under a british majors car, a brit police-car and a british collaborators car. A blast bomb has been thrown at british barracks in Lurgan also.

As the IRA said this easter rising commemoration:

"We have attacked the occupation and defended our communities, we will continue to do and with the continued support of the republican community we will escalate the campaign when it becomes opportune."

ContrarianLemming

15th August 2010, 20:03

Yes it is justified, military action against an occupation-force is always legitimate.

see this is exactly what I'm talking about, people call it an occupation, but really, get real, the way you'd describe it suggests it's living under martial law with the irish population under the boot of the british army. It's rediculous and all stinks of nationalism. It seems to deny the fact that more then half of the northerners consider themselves British, not irish. So are more then half of these people occupiers? They grew up there, it's there home. Or, to take a more internationalist stance, it's no ones home.

after all, the Celts who live in Ireland today conquered it form the previous neo lithic groups who lived there, are we current irish occupiers? No, because the neo lithics are long dead, as are the irish who were originally conquered in the North.

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 20:08

scarletghoul

15th August 2010, 20:12

Probably, some time in the future, not sure how soon though. But it's certain the political situation is unsustainable (continued devolution.. its only a matter of time before either a final push for reunification, or an abandonment of the political process by republicans, both of which will result in big violence).. There will always be an undercurrent of violence however, until reunification. This constant simmering violence is crucial as a reminder to the politicians what is at stake. But I wouldn't let it mislead you into thinking a new Troubles is imminent; its not. As long as Sinn Fein endorses the peace process and remains the most popular republican party, this violence will remain low low intensity.

And no of course it's not a religious war you fucking morons. Everyone on here should support the Irish peoples' struggle for freedom. Victory to the IRA. Tiocfaidh ar la !

Jazzratt

15th August 2010, 20:14

It could start again, is it justified? Not really, innocent people will die for little more than a different brand of Christianity. Don't forget that they also get to be ruled by local types under and wave a slightly different rag on a stick. The rag on a stick is very important.

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 20:17

Don't forget that they also get to be ruled by local types under and wave a slightly different rag on a stick. The rag on a stick is very important.

Aye, fuck them. The current one is fine, no doubt.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 20:18

Don't forget that they also get to be ruled by local types under and wave a slightly different rag on a stick. The rag on a stick is very important.

It has diffrent colours! and we all know a local exploitative overlord is the best kind of explotative overlord.

aty

15th August 2010, 20:27

see this is exactly what I'm talking about, people call it an occupation, but really, get real, the way you'd describe it suggests it's living under martial law with the irish population under the boot of the british army. It's rediculous and all stinks of nationalism. It seems to deny the fact that more then half of the northerners consider themselves British, not irish. So are more then half of these people occupiers? They grew up there, it's there home. Or, to take a more internationalist stance, it's no ones home.

after all, the Celts who live in Ireland today conquered it form the previous neo lithic groups who lived there, are we current irish occupiers? No, because the neo lithics are long dead, as are the irish who were originally conquered in the North.
Those people living on the island of Ireland is of course all irish. The small part of the population of Ireland who want to be part of britain is still irish. Do you know why the irish tricolour has orange in it?

Britain invaded Ireland and oppressed the irish people until an armed campaign brought them to the table and the british got to keep the northern part of Ireland which is still occupied by the british. The brits should draw back all crown forces from the occupied part of Ireland immediately.

You dont seem to have read so much about the socialist republicans cause?

"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. " - James Connolly

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 20:42

Communism isn't about redrawing borders around. If Irish people are discriminated against it isn't solved by attacking British people but by fighting capitalism and building solidarity between them as workers. Contrarianlemming is right, it's just nationalism which has nothing to do with communism at all, it's the opposite. Why aren't these people fighting against the Irish capitalists instead of starting shit and killing people just because they're "not Irish"

Nobody is advocating killing people for being "not Irish".

The posts are getting dumber and dumber. Strangely enough, you can find the most passionate defence of the status quo on Revleft.

Doesn't matter if you're a republican who fights for socialism both in word and in practice; you'll still get the "nationalist" label from some people. Nothing is ever good enough. The underlying message is: "Don't struggle! Don't do anything! God knows what might happen. Don't rock the boat."

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 20:44

Nobody is advocating killing people for being "not Irish".

The posts are getting dumber and dumber. Strangely enough, you can find the most passionate defence of the status quo on Revleft.

Doesn't matter if you're a republican who fights for socialism both in word and in practice; you'll still get the "nationalist" label from some people. Nothing is ever good enough. The underlying message is: "Don't struggle! Don't do anything! God knows what might happen. Don't rock the boat."

Well done, you ignored what people have been saying.

Mindtoaster

15th August 2010, 20:54

Well done, you ignored what people have been saying.

Well done, you've posted nothing better then one-liner, uninformed strawmen that sound like they were regurgitated from the Daily Mail

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 20:57

Well done, you've posted nothing better then one-liner, uninformed strawmen that sound like they were regurgitated from the Daily Mail

Hey now, the Daily Mail is a fine upstanding publication.

aty

15th August 2010, 20:59

Communism isn't about redrawing borders around. If Irish people are discriminated against it isn't solved by attacking British people but by fighting capitalism and building solidarity between them as workers. Contrarianlemming is right, it's just nationalism which has nothing to do with communism at all, it's the opposite. Why aren't these people fighting against the Irish capitalists instead of starting shit and killing people just because they're "not Irish"
The irish socialist republicans dont attack "british people" but british occupation-forces, they are legitimate military targets. The republicans also understands that they first must get rid of the occupation-forces before they can build a socialist republic! That is their tactic! It has nothing to do with nationalism but with pure tactics. Why even speak when you dont know nothing about the socialist movement in Ireland or the conflict?

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 21:02

The irish socialist republicans dont attack "british people" but british occupation-forces, they are legitimate military targets. The republicans also understands that they first must get rid of the occupation-forces before they can build a socialist republic! That is their tactic! It has nothing to do with nationalism but with pure tactics. Why even speak when you dont know nothing about the socialist movement in Ireland or the conflict?

So they want socialism in one country? Well. That can't go wrong.

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 21:08

Well done, you ignored what people have been saying.

What have people been saying that's new? It's always the same shrill denunciations of any and all Irish republican socialist struggle from the same bunch of simon-pure British and Irish anarchists and others. You guys have made four significant arguments in this thread, three of which are impossible to take seriously, and the last of which we can expand on further:

1) that republican socialists want to kill all non-Irish (self-evident bullshit straw man; anyone who repeats this is a fucking liar).
2) that republican socialists want to deport all Brits (same as above).
3) that the situation in Northern Ireland is a 'holy war' about 'who has the true God' (:rolleyes:).
4) that republican socialist action will just lead to a "local exploitative overlord" (an easy excuse to do nothing; see below).

Okay, so what exactly is wrong with the last statement? It's self-defeating, and it's kind of like impossibilism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#impossibilism), but applied to a more specific situation. It's a line of thought that you can use for anything.

For instance: why fight for anarchism/communism? If it doesn't spontaneously come into existence worldwide and solves all problems, other states will use their military power to put us all back to square one, and we'll just have new exploitative overlords. Why unionise? Trade unions will inevitably be co-opted by bureaucrats. Why try to start a revolution anywhere? Fascism will kick into action and crush them anyway. Ergo, all class struggle is to be denounced, as it inevitably leads to new exploitative overlords; We should wait for communism/anarchism to come to us from heaven or some shit like that.

The only alternative that someone has offered is that the Irish working-class and all others should simply "fight capitalism". Well, duh. That's the whole idea. They'll never succeed at this, though, if they don't overthrow their most immediate enemy (an enemy they have in common with the British working-class), namely the British state. The most direct way to build solidarity between the Catholic and Protestant workers is to overthrow the status quo in Northern Ireland, for it creates and expands sectarian conflict by its very nature.

Adi Shankara

15th August 2010, 21:12

This. Too many posters seem to ignore the detalis of this issue and boil it down to IRA=good, Brits=Evil. For those who support the IRA, should all the NIrish of British decent be deported back to mainland UK?

Why wouldn't they want to go back? they're proudly British, they have no intention of calling themselves Irish, so why would they want to stay in a place where the native islanders hate you for stealing their land and see you as an occupying force?

Besides, 9/10 in Northern Ireland, if you see a reactionary racist force, like Combat 18 etc. they have ties to Loyalist paramilitaries.

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 21:15

Thats bullshit, they''ve been "struggling" for so many years and they still haven't done anything. That's a load of crap, if they were really socialists they wouldn't be pushing nationalist garbage and dividing people instead of making international revolution. Nationalism is the status quo right now and fighting for communism is the only thing that can bring real change. Otherwise it's just same shit different asshole

Well, shit, luckily we still have Palmi "making international revolution". How is that working out? By this logic, we should denounce all action by all socialists, communists and anarchists unless they specifically frame it as "fighting for communism".

To be fair though, there are actually a lot of groups who work like this. They go to unionist meetings and actions with angry placards about how international revolution is the only solution, and about fighting for communism. It's not going anywhere, but hey, at least they're theoretically pure.

Also, perhaps you can expand some more on the whole "killing all non-Irish" thing that republicans supposedly have in mind.

Adi Shankara

15th August 2010, 21:17

These splinter groups are only reemerging due to the success with which peaceful politics has been pursued by the majority in Northern Ireland. It's a sign of desperation.

Or maybe it's a sign that Sinn Fein betrayed them, with the original goal being a united, socialist Ireland through any means necessary, to the current status quo of bourgeoisie political grab-ass today. Gerry Adams sold Irish Republicans (and the armed struggle with it) down the river for his nice spot in government.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 21:22

What have people been saying that's new? It's always the same shrill denunciations of any and all Irish republican socialist struggle from the same bunch of simon-pure British and Irish anarchists and others. Aside from the odd refrence to racial purity, could it be that British & Irish leftists who have experianced this conflict oppose it for a reason?

1) that republican socialists want to kill all non-Irish (self-evident bullshit straw man; anyone who repeats this is a fucking liar).

I never, actually said that..?

2) that republican socialists want to deport all Brits (same as above).

I asked that question, what do those who argue for a united Ireland want to do with those who would cling steadfastly to a British identity

3) that the situation in Northern Ireland is a 'holy war' about 'who has the true God' (:rolleyes:).

So this isn't a problem between a Catholic community and a Protestant community? Even though besides this factor the two have little diffrence?

4) that republican socialist action will just lead to a "local exploitative overlord" (an easy excuse to do nothing; see below).

Okay, so what exactly is wrong with the last statement? It's self-defeating, and it's kind of like impossibilism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#impossibilism), but applied to a more specific situation. It's a line of thought that you can use for anything.

For instance: why fight for anarchism/communism? If it doesn't spontaneously come into existence worldwide and solves all problems, other states will use their military power to put us all back to square one, and we'll just have new exploitative overlords. Why unionise? Trade unions will inevitably be co-opted by bureaucrats. Why try to start a revolution anywhere? Fascism will kick into action and crush them anyway. Ergo, all class struggle is to be denounced, as it inevitably leads to new exploitative overlords; We should wait for communism/anarchism to come to us from heaven or some shit like that.

The only alternative that someone has offered is that the Irish working-class and all others should simply "fight capitalism". Well, duh. That's the whole idea. They'll never succeed at this, though, if they don't overthrow their most immediate enemy (an enemy they have in common with the British working-class), namely the British state. The most direct way to build solidarity between the Catholic and Protestant workers is to overthrow the status quo in Northern Ireland, for it creates and expands sectarian conflict by its very nature.

Massive strawman aside, I fail to see why not wanting to fight so that new explotative leader can replace the existing one is wrong, that is precielsy why we fight for communism/anarchism, and against national liberation.

(Or I do, at any rate).

Why wouldn't they want to go back? they're proudly British, they have no intention of calling themselves Irish, so why would they want to stay in a place where the native islanders hate you for stealing their land and see you as an occupying force?

This statement can be reversed, why don't they go to the Republic, they're proudly Irish and have no intention of calling themselves British, so why would they want to stay in NI?

because its there fucking home, thats why.

ContrarianLemming

15th August 2010, 21:36

So whats the count now? How many times have I been accused defending imperialism? I oppose nationalism and I am pro imperialism! It's magic!

Adi Shankara

15th August 2010, 21:41

because its there fucking home, thats why.

Their home that doesn't truly belong to them if they don't want to contribute and be a part of it. The Northern Irish loyalists literally do their best to antagonize the local Irish population (the loyalists hate being called "Irish", they always call other Irish people "paddies", "bogtrotters", "Fenians ****s", and other racist shit) and try to remove the Irish character of the island.

I say the same thing to this Afrikaner Family that pisses me off that I know--if you want to go back to South Africa and call yourself South African, all the power to you, but if you call yourself Dutch or "Transvaller" or whatever, then you really don't belong in South Africa.

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 21:45

I never said they want to kill all the non-irish thats fucking bogus, but they DO want all the Brits off "their land" and they DO target innocent people for being british or protestant or whatever, you can't deny that.

Actually, both are easy to deny. You can't prove the former, and the latter is only true for the most strongly anti-socialist elements, exactly those elements that republican socialists have always distinguished themselves from.

Even so, the misguided "terrorism" from oppressed nations does not stand in any comparison to the organised brutality that imperialist countries unleash on the world. Seems to me that you're harsh on the former, but you take the latter for granted.

As for the rest of it I still think its really funny that you accuse others of supporting the status quo when you're saying pointless nationalist violence is the best we can get so we better settle instead of sticking to our principles and actually fighting for communism. Maybe you're on the wrong forum if you think communism is too idealistic

Maybe you're on the wrong planet if you think that Irish nationalism is the status quo at the moment. Last time I checked, the IRA or INLA weren't occupying Scotland, privileging Irish Scots and invading Middle Eastern countries, but maybe I've missed something. So what is there to settle into? You're the one passionately defending the sectarian statelet of Northern Ireland, so you're the one settling and compromising. If you want to disguise that with all kinds of lofty principles, that's your choice.

I never said that nationalist violence is the best we can get. I've only ever recognised the fact that a nation which oppresses another nation cannot be free itself. Therefore, the conservation of the Northern Irish state will only ever lead to more sectarianism, while its destruction would allow both Protestant and Catholic workers to unite and win. Since this would be a defeat for British imperialism, it would also embolden working-class struggle in Britain. Sounds like a win-win situation. Of course, alternatively, they could do nothing, maintain the current state of affairs, and wait until communism can somehow magically be established within the context of the British imperialist state. Yeah, let's do that.

Communism is not idealistic at all, but if someone knew the perfect way to bring humanity straight to communism, they would have done it already. We want communism, but we can't get it just like that. If we can, perhaps you can tell us how, since you seem to be in the know. :rolleyes:

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 21:46

Their home that doesn't truly belong to them if they don't want to contribute and be a part of it.

I say the same thing to this Afrikaner Family that pisses me off that I know--if you want to go back to South Africa and call yourself South African, all the power to you, but if you call yourself Dutch or "Transvaller" or whatever, then you really don't belong in South Africa.

So several generation immigrants who retain their own identities should be deported?

Adi Shankara

15th August 2010, 21:47

So this isn't a problem between a Catholic community and a Protestant community? Even though besides this factor the two have little diffrence?

even though this isn't particular to Northern Ireland, if you really want to see how the Irish natives see the British occupiers (yes, occupiers; Northern Ireland is pretty much an ego stroke, it isn't even that important in the greater scheme of things, but still it maintains)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4ifPsTe2I

beautiful song btw. Even though the Potato famine and the land jumping was many many years ago, these things have entered Irish folk memory to such a degree that it is on the collective conciousness of most Irish people. the only reason why I have Irish blood is because of this struggle.

ContrarianLemming

15th August 2010, 21:48

Their home that doesn't truly belong to them if they don't want to contribute and be a part of it.

Ok well you're russian american, what are you doing in America? You don't belong there!
Infact, Americans don't belong in america! It belongs to the natives!

I mean, really, a northern Irish regular, who grew up there, works there, whole family lives there, but happens to be non Celtic, and you say they don't belong there? This is the height of nationalism.

I'm confused by your last statement - they dont contribute or want to be part of it -

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 21:49

A song is your evidence? I forgot that being in Hawii and all you had an indepth knowledge of the troubles.

Adi Shankara

15th August 2010, 21:51

So several generation immigrants who retain their own identities should be deported?

Strawman--where did I say they should be deported? I simply asked why the hell they wanted to stay if they dont' want to be a part of the society.

If you want to stay to change the society through revolution--all the power to you. but if you want to Africa into Europe...what are you doing in Africa?

A song is your evidence? I forgot that being in Hawii and all you had an indepth knowledge of the troubles.

it was just to show the sentiment, since you're confused into thinking this is a religious conflict, which shows about how much you know the situation in Northern Ireland.

the song was to show that this is a part of the Irish folk memory that stretches hundreds of years, the way slavery does with African Americans.

I mean, really, a northern Irish regular, who grew up there, works there, whole family lives there, but happens to be non Celtic, and you say they don't belong there? This is the height of nationalism.

you know someone has a bad argument when they have to rely on strawmen. where did i say they should be deported? I just questioned why they want to remove the "Ireland" from "Northern Ireland".

ContrarianLemming

15th August 2010, 21:54

-where did I say they should be deported? I simply asked why the hell they wanted to stay if they dont' want to be a part of the society.they do.

see I'm using something you're not! EVIDENCE, STATISTICS.

Adi Shankara

15th August 2010, 21:56

they do.

see I'm using something you're not! EVIDENCE, STATISTICS.

actually, you're not. what evidence and statistics have you used? Lol, you're nuts. I'm done talking with you.:lol:

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 21:56

Strawman--where did I say they should be deported? I simply asked why the hell they wanted to stay if they dont' want to be a part of the society.

If you want to stay to change the society through revolution--all the power to you. but if you want to Africa into Europe...what are you doing in Africa?

It was seemingly implied, and sounded very similar to the ractionary tendency of 'if you don't want to contribute, go 'home''

it was just to show the sentiment, since you're confused into thinking this is a religious conflict, which shows about how much you know the situation in Northern Ireland.

Yes, yes, I think this is all about religion. I have not already said in this thread that this is a complex issue, nope, not once.

the song was to show that this is a part of the Irish folk memory that stretches hundreds of years, the way slavery does with African Americans.

Oh dear.

Mindtoaster

15th August 2010, 21:57

Aside from the odd refrence to racial purity, could it be that British & Irish leftists who have experianced this conflict oppose it for a reason?

Are you fucking kidding me?

English and free-state anarchists didn't experience the Troubles. I don't care if the IRA bombed Manchester once in a blue moon, you didn't live under pogroms, internment, widespread British army checkpoints and sectarian death squads, surrounded by daily bombings, ambushes and assassinations.

This statement can be reversed, why don't they go to the Republic, they're proudly Irish and have no intention of calling themselves British, so why would they want to stay in NI?

because its there fucking home, thats why.

Which they gerrymandered away and moved into in order to protect their privileged status from being taken away by the vast majority of the island

Wanted Man

15th August 2010, 22:00

Aside from the odd refrence to racial purity, could it be that British & Irish leftists who have experianced this conflict oppose it for a reason?

No racial purity here:

Modernly, Simon Pure has become the source of two expressions: the phrase "The real Simon Pure", meaning "the real man"; and the adjective "simon-pure", meaning either

1. of genuine, untainted purity or integrity; or
2. pretentiously, superficially or hypocritically virtuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-pure#Simon_Pure

Guess which of the two definitions applies here. ;)

I never, actually said that..?

Not everything is about you. I was responding to the whole lot of defenders of the Crown in this thread. This one came from Palmi, I believe. To be fair, he didn't say that Irish republicans want to kill all non-Irish, just that they want to kill people for not being Irish. Significant differences here...

I asked that question, what do those who argue for a united Ireland want to do with those who would cling steadfastly to a British identity

I dunno, what do you want to do with steadfast pro-capitalists after the revolution? You can't eradicate opinions. What matters is actions. If the likes of the UVF take up arms to commit sectarian murders, they should be dealt with accordingly.

Other than that, though, how people want to identify is up to them. Eventually, in a socialist society, national identities, religion, statism, etc. would pass into irrelevance.

So this isn't a problem between a Catholic community and a Protestant community? Even though besides this factor the two have little diffrence?

Now you're talking about their communities in NI, which is a different thing altogether. That is obviously true, but that's completely different from a "holy war" or any actual theological arguments. Ian Paisley may think that the pope is the Antichrist. However, the UVF and the like weren't founded because the pope is the Antichrist, but to enforce discrimination against Catholics. Likewise, the IRA weren't founded as a holy crusade initiated in Rome.

Massive strawman aside, I fail to see why not wanting to fight so that new explotative leader can replace the existing one is wrong, that is precielsy why we fight for communism/anarchism, and against national liberation.

(Or I do, at any rate).

What does any of this mean? Of course we fight for communism/anarchism. However, we have a difference of opinion on the circumstances that this can be achieved under. Can it be done without fighting against our own imperialist nations (rather than its enemies abroad, even if you oppose the idea of national liberation), can it succeed in a place like Northern Ireland as long as it is occupied?

Mindtoaster

15th August 2010, 22:04

they do.

see I'm using something you're not! EVIDENCE, STATISTICS.

You haven't substantiated the claim that republicans want to deport all unionists AT ALL.

The only people I have ever heard make that claim are bat-shit crazy loyalists and the occasional catholic anti-social hood saying shit like "kill all huns" (a phrase which comes from the loyalist "kill all taigs").

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

15th August 2010, 22:19

I dunno, what do you want to do with steadfast pro-capitalists after the revolution? You can't eradicate opinions. What matters is actions. If the likes of the UVF take up arms to commit sectarian murders, they should be dealt with accordingly.

Clearly, people can be free to express any opinions they want, but if they decide to murder people based on some twisted idea of racial purity of that the 'fenians' are taking over.

Other than that, though, how people want to identify is up to them. Eventually, in a socialist society, national identities, religion, statism, etc. would pass into irrelevance.

I agree

Now you're talking about their communities in NI, which is a different thing altogether. That is obviously true, but that's completely different from a "holy war" or any actual theological arguments. Ian Paisley may think that the pope is the Antichrist. However, the UVF and the like weren't founded because the pope is the Antichrist, but to enforce discrimination against Catholics. Likewise, the IRA weren't founded as a holy crusade initiated in Rome.

I agree with this too, the UVF and any other loyalist paramilitary were just armed thugs. Ian Paisly is mental

What does any of this mean? Of course we fight for communism/anarchism. However, we have a difference of opinion on the circumstances that this can be achieved under. Can it be done without fighting against our own imperialist nations (rather than its enemies abroad, even if you oppose the idea of national liberation), can it succeed in a place like Northern Ireland as long as it is occupied?

Here we suffer from a diffrence of opinon, and rather than drag this into a stupid sectarian debate about who is right, I'll leave it at that.

The Douche

15th August 2010, 22:48

Threads like this make me wonder if I might be marxist-leninist.

How dare those oppressed and imperialised people fight for their right to make their descisions on how to organize their society.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

15th August 2010, 22:55

I guess most of your Unionist comrades agree:p
Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Off course I meant unionism in the sence of Irish unification, not in the sense of "unity" between Northern Ireland and the UK, but indeed the term unionism in Ireland is mostly used by British loyalists.

aty

15th August 2010, 23:24

So they want socialism in one country? Well. That can't go wrong.
What the fuck are you talking about? Of course they must fight for socialism in the place were they live? Just as I do and just as you do? Are you a socialist? I want socialism in Sweden just as the socialists in Ireland want socialism there. And the socialist republican movement in Ireland have always been internationalist. First they must draw out the imperialists then they can get rid of capitalism.

What are your arguments? Or do you just like trolling?

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

16th August 2010, 01:08

Yeah because oppressed nationalist workers in British-occupied Ireland rising up against discrimination, defending their communities from pogroms and fighting to drive the murderous RUC and British Army out of their land... that's definitely what a holy war looks like.

The RUC formally became the PSNI quite some time ago, the PSNI forms a paramilitary presence and are generally armed with H&K MP5/G3s, flak jackets and sometimes more. They actually defend the Army for the most part who numbered 5,000 over 22 bases in Ulster according to official Dec 2009 statistics, the Army are largely unarmed too and are basically being forced to be unofficial PR reps, to look good as if they are protecting NI.

The one and main exception to this are special forces, more of whom were deployed in NI in 2009: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/special-forces-deployment-in-northern-ireland-may-have-sparked-assault-14218201.html.

Ultimately, troop numbers are increasing since 2005 when the PIRA put its cards on the table, watchtowers are supposed to have gone but apparently some are being re-erected. The situation there remains shaky and it's hard to say what will happen, but a re-start to the troubles would basically be devastating in every way to workers and their families, who already find themselves heavily divided in the consociationalist system specially made to divide and rule in NI.

Qayin

16th August 2010, 02:10

Threads like this make me wonder if I might be marxist-leninist.

How dare those oppressed and imperialised people fight for their right to make their descisions on how to organize their society.

You can still be an Anarchist and facepalm at a lot of the horseshit in this thread spewed by ContrarianLemming and Comrade Wolfie(Who should be banned for trolling). It separates the Utopia Liberal "Anarchists" from the real deal when issues like this arise. I still have disagreements with ML's but I agree on the aspect of a United Socialist Ireland.

The Douche

16th August 2010, 03:51

You can still be an Anarchist and facepalm at a lot of the horseshit in this thread spewed by ContrarianLemming and Comrade Wolfie(Who should be banned for trolling). It separates the Utopia Liberal "Anarchists" from the real deal when issues like this arise. I still have disagreements with ML's but I agree on the aspect of a United Socialist Ireland.

Yeah for sure. Just like the DPRK thread.

So many anarchists ignore the political reality of the world in order to cling to ideology and dogmatism.

As if the working class of northern ireland can just destroy state and capital and it has nothing to do with ridding themselves of the british state/imperialism.:rolleyes:

727Goon

16th August 2010, 04:19

I definitely support Republican Socialist groups. While I don't agree with some of their politics I feel like their struggle in Ireland is a lot like the Black Panthers struggle here or the Zapatistas struggle in Chiapas. I'm not trying to be sectarian with it.

Also anyone who called me liberal for supporting freedom of speech but doesnt support the Irish Republican Struggle can eat a dick.

The Red Next Door

16th August 2010, 05:10

This thread smelling like a bunch of Queen of Great *****tan ass kissing Liberals. I tell you. :mad:

Saorsa

16th August 2010, 06:30

So this isn't a problem between a Catholic community and a Protestant community? Even though besides this factor the two have little diffrence?

Um, what? Catholic/nationalist workers were and continue to be discriminated against with regard to employment, housing, the legal system and police brutality. Loyalist workers are exploited *as proletarians*, but they don't suffer under the double oppression that nationalist workers do.

Republicanism in the 6 counties, the Provos and the Irps, emerged as a working class response to sectarian pogroms and state-sponsored discrimination. The Provos were a working class movement that during the 80s at least was fighting for more than a united Ireland. As oppressed workers flooded the ranks of Sinn Fein and the PIRA, they pushed it to the left and organised for socialist revolution. The prisoners held Marxist study sessions in their cells, and a close comrade of mine used to be in charge of Sinn Fein's political education department in Dublin - they were preaching socialism and practicing socialism. Of course the organisation was not unified around this and eventually right wing elements took control, but it was a very real and very significant force for a long time. The Provos in the 80s were lightyears closer to being a revolutionary Marxist organisation than trendy left groups like the SWP and CWI are even today. This is a basic historical fact that ultra-left sectarians and right-wing social democrats (like the CWI) attempt to disguise/ignore. The Irps were always and continue to be a principled and heroic Marxist-Leninist organisation.

The RUC formally became the PSNI quite some time ago

I know. My point was that the PIRA did not emerge because the filthy Catholics wanted to massacre all the prods, the PIRA was a working class movement that emerged to defend the most oppressed section of the Irish proletariat from sectarian attacks.

I wonder how many of the fake leftists who attack the PIRA take a completely different approach to the Black Panther Party, or the EZLN. Why is it okay to wage armed struggle in Chiapas but not in Derry?

The anarchist 'plague on both your houses' approach is just a way for cowardly First World lefties to try and get out of their anti-imperialist duties. Those promoting this line deserve nothing but contempt.

Devrim

16th August 2010, 07:20

Republicanism in the 6 counties, the Provos and the Irps, emerged as a working class response to sectarian pogroms and state-sponsored discrimination.

No, the Provos were always a cross class movement. Their membership might have been mostly workers, but so is the membership of virtually all bourgeois parties.

The Provos were a working class movement that during the 80s at least was fighting for more than a united Ireland.

Exactly what sort of 'more'?

The Provos in the 80s were lightyears closer to being a revolutionary Marxist organisation than trendy left groups like the SWP and CWI are even today.

The 'Marxism' of the Provos was always something tacked on after the fact.

I wonder how many of the fake leftists who attack the PIRA take a completely different approach to the Black Panther Party, or the EZLN. Why is it okay to wage armed struggle in Chiapas but not in Derry?

I am not sure how many people are as inconsistent as you imagine.

The anarchist 'plague on both your houses' approach is just a way for cowardly First World lefties to try and get out of their anti-imperialist duties. Those promoting this line deserve nothing but contempt.

I am not sure exactly how much 'courage' it takes to sit in New Zealand and say I support these sort of groups.

Devrim

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

16th August 2010, 09:15

Um, what? Catholic/nationalist workers were and continue to be discriminated against with regard to employment, housing, the legal system and police brutality. Loyalist workers are exploited *as proletarians*, but they don't suffer under the double oppression that nationalist workers do.

Tell that to the 100's of k's of Protestants who have tried to unite with Catholic workers only to be targeted by "their own".

Republicanism in the 6 counties, the Provos and the Irps, emerged as a working class response to sectarian pogroms and state-sponsored discrimination. The Provos were a working class movement that during the 80s at least was fighting for more than a united Ireland. As oppressed workers flooded the ranks of Sinn Fein and the PIRA, they pushed it to the left and organised for socialist revolution. The prisoners held Marxist study sessions in their cells, and a close comrade of mine used to be in charge of Sinn Fein's political education department in Dublin - they were preaching socialism and practicing socialism. Of course the organisation was not unified around this and eventually right wing elements took control, but it was a very real and very significant force for a long time. The Provos in the 80s were lightyears closer to being a revolutionary Marxist organisation than trendy left groups like the SWP and CWI are even today. This is a basic historical fact that ultra-left sectarians and right-wing social democrats (like the CWI) attempt to disguise/ignore. The Irps were always and continue to be a principled and heroic Marxist-Leninist organisation.

On SF, the org is a "heroic Marxist-Leninist organisation" too? Maybe look back to their early history, for example SF councillors who were owners of the means of production attacking workers who worked in their workplaces (look at the history of the Limerick soviet). If you look at it from a Marxist POV, objectively they were reactionary a long time before they joined the NI assembly. The PIRA and the IRPS are no saints either.

I know. My point was that the PIRA did not emerge because the filthy Catholics wanted to massacre all the prods, the PIRA was a working class movement that emerged to defend the most oppressed section of the Irish proletariat from sectarian attacks.

I wonder how many of the fake leftists who attack the PIRA take a completely different approach to the Black Panther Party, or the EZLN. Why is it okay to wage armed struggle in Chiapas but not in Derry?

The BPP and the EZLN are no better

The anarchist 'plague on both your houses' approach is just a way for cowardly First World lefties to try and get out of their anti-imperialist duties. Those promoting this line deserve nothing but contempt.

Tell me why you hold the line that Maoris don't have a separate nation in NZ, which I have read on your blog.

If you take that line, then surely you are a hypocrite too by your own standards? :confused:

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

16th August 2010, 09:25

progressive_lefty

16th August 2010, 09:43

Pretty poor thread, can't the poster see the connection between the Orange marches and the bomb being placed in the bin? It's quite distasteful to see the amount of hostility towards a unified Ireland, and the lack of consideration for the struggle that has lasted for hundreds and hundreds of years. Any discussion of 'the Troubles' beginning again would be on the part of Unionists/Loyalists that just want to demonise a republican voting population of Northern Ireland that are taking the march towards a United Ireland via the peace orientated direction of the Sinn Fein.

Hoggy_RS

16th August 2010, 10:20

Key word being were in that post. Back in 1916 and 1919-21, they were probably Atheist's mostly, but nowadays with the Provisional IRA, RIRA, or whatever they're calling themselves these days, aren't what the real IRA in 1916 and 1919-21 was. Nowadays, it's got largely to do with Christianity. Mostly between the Catholics and Protestants who are having a sort of political holy war of sorts between who's Christian God is truer than the others. Those stuck in the middle are just there, stuck in the middle.
Step away from the keyboard and pick up a book. You're embaressing yourself.

Oh yeah, and here is some footage of the IRA marching in an illegal parade through what I think are Loyalist neighborhoods (not sure):

That video is about 20 yeas old lad.

I voted absolutely. Ireland has been occupied, exploited and subdued by British imperialism for centuries, and when the Irish finally achieved their freedom, the British imperialisls succeeded in keeping one last stronghold on the isle.
Ireland is not Great-Britain, the British do not have any right to occupy a piece of a sovereign island state. Therefore I completely support the Unionist cause.
However, while the IRA would have all right to wage the struggle they are waging, the death of innocent civilians is off course completely unacceptable.
In regards to Ireland I mostly support the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) and its armed wing the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)

It's important to point out that the INLA has decomissioned and the Irish Republican Socialist Movement is following a different path of cross community iniatives, attempts to build class conciousness and generals attempts to unite the working class against the common enemy of local and foreign capitalism.

The RIRA/ONH/CIRA are doing nothing to further are goals and are probably at this point holding republican socialist back a bit. The politics of these groups does not go past getting the Brits out. The political wings these groups have shown themselves in the past to be hostile to socialism(though there would certainly be socialists in their ranks. Armed struggle at this point is counter-prodcutive and only maintains the division between nationalist and unionist workers.

However, their campaign is understandable. No matter what Sinn Fein or tabloids say there is still quite a bit of support for armed struggl against the brits in nationalist areas. the constant harrassing and internment of republicans does nothing to quench this desire for armed struggle. While the imperialist occupiers continue to harrass the nationalist community there will probably still be groups taking the fight to them despite how small or marginalised these groups may be.

Saorsa

16th August 2010, 11:04

I am not sure exactly how much 'courage' it takes to sit in New Zealand and say I support these sort of groups.

I've never claimed my political support for the struggle in the 6 counties is brave. But it takes a special kind of political and personal cowardice for 'leftists' in Ireland and Britain to refuse to support the struggle of the most oppressed section of the Irish proletariat against it's imperialist oppressors.

There are always exceptions to the rule. I think your refusal to support the national liberation struggle is based on your flawed politics, which are nonetheless honest and genuine. That ain't true of most though. The Trotskyists (SWP, CWI etc) are the absolute worst in this regard - they're happy to support national liberation struggles in other countries, but not in their own backyard.

Tell that to the 100's of k's of Protestants who have tried to unite with Catholic workers only to be targeted by "their own".

Ah yes. The problem isn't sectarian discrimination against nationalist workers - it's the sectarian attitude of these nationalist workers themselves. I suppose the problem in the American South was that black workers consistently refused to unite with white workers. Aren't they ungrateful!

Tell me why you hold the line that Maoris don't have a separate nation in NZ, which I have read on your blog.

If you take that line, then surely you are a hypocrite too by your own standards?

Because believe it or not, it's possible for different situations to exist in different countries. There is no Maori national liberation struggle taking place in New Zealand and there hasn't been for probably over a century. Maori are not treated the same way as Catholic workers are in the 6 counties, and urban working class Maori have never had any major interest in seperatism. I guess what sums up the differences is that the white colonial government in this country encouraged Maori-European intermarriage. Polynesians were actually ranked quite highly in the European racial hierarchy - the British certainly considered them superior to the Irish.

Of course we can't forget the massacres, dispossesion of Maori from their land and continuing racial oppression faced by Maori and Pacific Island people in this country. I've written a brief bit about that here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maori-new-zealand-t136670/index.html?t=136670) Let's not derail this thread any further hmm?

If there were Maori communities fighting to drive the police out and exercise power over themselves, I would support that 100%. I support the struggles of people in Afghanistan against the New Zealand troops there, I support the struggles of Pacific Island people against Australian and NZ imperialism. End of story. Let's not derail this thread any further hmm?

Saorsa

16th August 2010, 11:05

@ Hoggy: What are your thoughts on eirigi?

Hoggy_RS

16th August 2010, 11:34

@ Hoggy: What are your thoughts on eirigi?

Very solid socialist activists. A few of their members were up in court recently for occupying anglo-irish bank headquarters. However, the actual politics of the group are open to interpretations as well as their reasons for forming. After 5 years of existence they have yet to really outline what their politics are but I wouldn't reckon they aren't marxist although they'd probably be sympathetic to marxist thought. The great majority of Eirigi members were Sinn Fein members up until 2005/06 and this brings into questions why they stayed in a capitalist party for so long. It was pretty clear to most people in the mid-90's that Sinn Fein were abondoning revolutionary politics for new establishment careers in Stormont. Those Eirigi members stayed in Sinn Fein even after the Good Friday Agreement which copper fastened partition as well as promoting sectarian politics. It could be argued that the eirigi activists were trying to change the party from the inside (much like militant in Labour) but you can't be sure really. It could also be asked why they didn't join the IRSP rather than forming yet another republican group.

Adi Shankara

16th August 2010, 11:36

Why is it okay to wage armed struggle in Chiapas but not in Derry?

Because this site is full of British apologists for Northern Irish Loyalism, whereas with Chiapas, it's far away enough for them to support it and look revolutionary without it directly affecting their comfort zone?

Devrim

16th August 2010, 11:55

Because this site is full of British apologists for Northern Irish Loyalism, whereas with Chiapas, it's far away enough for them to support it and look revolutionary without it directly affecting their comfort zone?

I don't think that amongst the regular posters there is any apologism for loyalism unless you believe that not supporting Irish republicanism automatically means apologism for republicanism.

Devrim

Saorsa

16th August 2010, 11:59

I don't think that amongst the regular posters there is any apologism for loyalism unless you believe that not supporting Irish republicanism automatically means apologism for republicanism.

I'd second this. Don't throw around serious charges lightly Sankara. However shitty the left-com politics are, they are not apologists for loyalism.

I also find it ironic that an apologist for the Tibetan landlord class and the hell on earth it ruled over is making such accusations.

Devrim

16th August 2010, 12:01

I've never claimed my political support for the struggle in the 6 counties is brave. But it takes a special kind of political and personal cowardice for 'leftists' in Ireland and Britain to refuse to support the struggle of the most oppressed section of the Irish proletariat against it's imperialist oppressors.

I can remember arguing for Irish republicanism (maybe a big shock for some people on here) in both Britain and Ireland when I was young. It never made me feel particulary brave to be honest.

I don't even see what you mean by 'cowardice'.

What I do consider both 'politically and personally' 'brave' is people in Northern Ireland arguing for class politics and against both nationalisms.

There are always exceptions to the rule. I think your refusal to support the national liberation struggle is based on your flawed politics, which are nonetheless honest and genuine.

Why thank you, I think.:)

Devrim

Saorsa

16th August 2010, 12:15

I don't even see what you mean by 'cowardice'.

"Most people around me in Britain support our troops and think the IRA were terrorists. If I argue against this maybe they won't like me. So as per usual, I'll base my politics on what is acceptable to backward elements of the population, rather than the (in this period very small) advanced elements."

Here the Cliffites call for a vote for Labour for this reason. It's the classic Trotskyist approach. In a period where being a consistent communist and anti-imperialist isn't that trendy, the Trots choose trendiness over Marxism-Leninism.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

16th August 2010, 13:16

Ah yes. The problem isn't sectarian discrimination against nationalist workers - it's the sectarian attitude of these nationalist workers themselves. I suppose the problem in the American South was that black workers consistently refused to unite with white workers. Aren't they ungrateful!

How does any of that in ANY way relate to a single word I wrote? I never implied or inferred that Catholic background workers were sectarian even for a second, youve completely tried to label me with something that was never, ever mentioned, which is shamefaced smearing or an astounding lack of thorough reading.

My post points out that Protestant workers face discrimination from Unionist/Loyalist fundamentalist Protestant and sometimes fascist paramilitaries. If you like, the parallel would be a mixed couple in a town with a minority of determined racists in the south, this could result in the murder and lynching of the white partner just as badly as the other and most importantly, these things DO happen in NI, you clearly dont know anything about NI - and I have spent time there- if you say other wise.

Because believe it or not, it's possible for different situations to exist in different countries. There is no Maori national liberation struggle taking place in New Zealand and there hasn't been for probably over a century. Maori are not treated the same way as Catholic workers are in the 6 counties, and urban working class Maori have never had any major interest in seperatism. I guess what sums up the differences is that the white colonial government in this country encouraged Maori-European intermarriage. Polynesians were actually ranked quite highly in the European racial hierarchy - the British certainly considered them superior to the Irish.

Of course we can't forget the massacres, dispossesion of Maori from their land and continuing racial oppression faced by Maori and Pacific Island people in this country. I've written a brief bit about that here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maori-new-zealand-t136670/index.html?t=136670) Let's not derail this thread any further hmm?

So you can label me anything you like but I cant talk about a related topic? Isnt that a bit hypocritical.

It smacks of hypocrisy to me, that there is a Maori party who you dont support but then you support Sinn Fein - the parliamentary republicans who disbanded from the IRA, who were previously the political wing of the IRA.

If there were Maori communities fighting to drive the police out and exercise power over themselves, I would support that 100%. I support the struggles of people in Afghanistan against the New Zealand troops there, I support the struggles of Pacific Island people against Australian and NZ imperialism. End of story. Let's not derail this thread any further hmm?

I dont know what you hope to achieve by forcefully trying to ram home your anti-imperialist credentials?

Jolly Red Giant

16th August 2010, 13:33

The Trotskyists (SWP, CWI etc) are the absolute worst in this regard - they're happy to support national liberation struggles in other countries, but not in their own backyard.
I can't speak for the SWP - but the position of the CWI on 'national liberation' / 'the national question' / 'self-determination' is exactly the same across all the sections of the CWI and in relation to each incident of colonial/national oppression.

The root cause of the problem in Northern Ireland is the role of British Imperialism. The sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland is the result of actions by British Imperialism and the deaths caused the responsibility of British Imperialism.

The issue of supporting the 'armed struggle' has nothing to do with morality or bravery or cowardice - it is related pure and simply to the tactics of the 'armed struggle'. The campaign of individual terror waged by republican paramilitaries for 35 years failed. It failed because it was a mistaken tactic - it was a tactic that led an entire generation of the best and most committed Catholic youth up a blind alley. It was the wrong strategy when it emerged, it is the wrong strategy now and it will be the wrong strategy in the future. What is actually worse is claiming that republican paramilitaries were 'standing up' to British Imperialism. This is nonsense and is an excuse for the use of incorrect tactics. 'Standing up' to British Imperialism is useless unless it has an end product.

It is inevitable at some point that the situation in the North will once again degenerate into a sectarian conflict. The responsibility for this will lie squarely on the shoulders of British Imperialism. However, when this does happen, republican paramilitaries and their political representatives will be faced with exactly the same dilemma as they were in 1970 - and they will make exactly the same mistake. They will embark on a campaign of individual terror against the state forces, against loyalist paramilitaries and occasionally against the Protestant working class. As a result in fifty years time the working class in the North will be back in exactly the same situation as now - if not worse - except there will be a whole lot more people killed.

Killing British troops etc. has nothing to do with justification - it simply does not work as a tactic for the removal of British Imperialism.

Soldier of life

16th August 2010, 13:55

We won't be seeing anything near the scale of armed struggle as was waged in the 70s and 80s. The current crop of armed groups appear quite inept, in comparison with the PIRA and INLA. Also, technology, public opinion etc have all changed to make it more difficult for these groups, and there is no dobut they are infiltrated, which could play a large part in why basically all their attacks end up in failure.

Would it be justified? I'd have no moral qualms about it, but the fact of the matter is these tactics have been tried, tested and failed. The people of the North are war-weary, so these attacks in my opinion under serve to strengthen Stormont rather than undermine it, because people would see it as the only option as oppose to war again. There may be some argument that if the armed attacks were on such a scale that Sinn Fein would lose their main bargaining chip with the Brits (the fact they had a monopoly on armed struggle from a republican point of view pretty much as the INLA had been on a de facto ceasefire since 1994) and Stormont could be undermined. But that kind of capability seems to be far, far beyond the reach of any of the armed groups today. So ultimately, it is more of a hindrance than a positive, correct strategy.

Saorsa

16th August 2010, 14:19

It smacks of hypocrisy to me, that there is a Maori party who you dont support but then you support Sinn Fein - the parliamentary republicans who disbanded from the IRA, who were previously the political wing of the IRA.

I don't support Sinn Fein. Why is it that every time you and me debate we end up talking past each other? Engage with what I'm actually saying, or try your best to.

Sinn Fein today is a different organisation to what it once was. Sinn Fein before the Good Friday sellout was arguably worthy of support - today that argument is not possible to make.

Furthermore, the Maori party here has never even pretended to be a socialist organisation, and it certainly doesn't have ranks full of committed working class revolutionaries fighting to destroy capitalism like Sinn Fein once did. The Maori Party split from Labour only a few years ago and is now in a coalition govt with the Tories. It is not an anti-imperialist party and it sure as hell ain't socialist.

Perhaps you should stop trying to draw parallels between the situation in occupied Ireland and a situation in New Zealand that you really don't understand.

Android

16th August 2010, 15:34

Sinn Fein today is a different organisation to what it once was. Sinn Fein before the Good Friday sellout was arguably worthy of support - today that argument is not possible to make.

I'd be interested in why you think Sinn Fein should've been supported pre-GFA?

I fail to see the golden age of Sinn Fein (1969-1994/7) that you seem to see and to which it is meant to have degenerated from.

Devrim

16th August 2010, 15:55

Sinn Fein today is a different organisation to what it once was. Sinn Fein before the Good Friday sellout was arguably worthy of support - today that argument is not possible to make.

Sinn Féin before the 'Good Friday sell-out' was an organisation working for the Good Friday agreement or a similar deal.

Devrim

Devrim

16th August 2010, 16:12

Here the Cliffites call for a vote for Labour for this reason. It's the classic Trotskyist approach.

It is not particular to Trotskyists. The Stalinists in the UK consistently argued for a Labour vote too.

In a period where being a consistent communist and anti-imperialist isn't that trendy, the Trots choose trendiness over Marxism-Leninism.

I see that you have picked up on the 'trendy argument' off the IRSP types. It is a particularly poor attempt at an argument. Certainly the trendiest group on the British left that ever existed, the RCP*, supported Irish nationalism completely and unconditionally. If 'trendy' means something about being 'modern and influenced by the most recent fashions or ideas', I would say that in the 1970s and 1980s support for Irish nationalism was 'trendy'. It is not 'trendy' to be opposed to it today, nor I think has it ever been. It is something that has fallen out of focus too much for the 'trendy' to even notice.

Devrim

*Not the post-war one, the split from the SWP.

Crux

16th August 2010, 16:51

I wish I was trendy. :( Please, someone tell me what is the trend today? Those dissident RIRA and CIRA sure seem cool, but which is the "in" group to back? Haha, and to think there are so called leftists in sweden still talkinga bout the provos. You've got to keep up with the trends comrades.

Or maybe "trendy leftism" is a bullshit argument from a organization that picked up on a particular trend when they came around, namely shooting themselves up.

aty

16th August 2010, 17:37

I wish I was trendy. :( Please, someone tell me what is the trend today? Those dissident RIRA and CIRA sure seem cool, but which is the "in" group to back? Haha, and to think there are so called leftists in sweden still talkinga bout the provos. You've got to keep up with the trends comrades.
Óglaigh na hÉireann (ONH) seems to be the most capable group in Ireland at the moment.

bricolage

16th August 2010, 18:09

I reckon if the IRA were in the news the way Hamas or Hezbollah are they'd be getting the attention the left dishes out on the latter.

"Most people around me in Britain support our troops and think the IRA were terrorists. If I argue against this maybe they won't like me. So as per usual, I'll base my politics on what is acceptable to backward elements of the population, rather than the (in this period very small) advanced elements."
I don't even think people talk about 'the troops' in terms of Northern Ireland anymore. If the left were basing their politics on what you say and in relation to what the left chat about these days they'd be backing 'our boys' in Iraq/Afghanistan, as it stands they'll cheer anyone who pops shots at a soldier. I don't think it's to do with supporting the British army in N.Ireland, I just don't think its an issue that left groups really see as important anymore.

I suppose this is down to trendiness, I guess it's also to do with energy and resources which are limited to most left groups so they are obviously going to focus on whats likely to be a more emotive issue. Actually I read a pretty good critique of humanitarian intervention once talking about how it just shifts from place to place on this very criteria (emotive, in the news...) which doesn't really help anyone, I suppose the same could be said of most left groups...

Adi Shankara

16th August 2010, 19:44

I also find it ironic that an apologist for the Tibetan landlord class and the hell on earth it ruled over is making such accusations.

What apologist? I said the Lamaist rule was bad, I never denied that, I just said that the Chinese occupation was worse.

you rely on strawmen too much.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

16th August 2010, 19:55

I don't support Sinn Fein. Why is it that every time you and me debate we end up talking past each other? Engage with what I'm actually saying, or try your best to.

Sinn Fein today is a different organisation to what it once was. Sinn Fein before the Good Friday sellout was arguably worthy of support - today that argument is not possible to make.

And what does it tell you that Sinn Fein have believed in parliamentarianism since the 1900's, what does it tell you that it was the political wing of the IRA and that it has effectively marginalised the armed movement since GFA was signed.

Furthermore, the Maori party here has never even pretended to be a socialist organisation, and it certainly doesn't have ranks full of committed working class revolutionaries fighting to destroy capitalism like Sinn Fein once did. The Maori Party split from Labour only a few years ago and is now in a coalition govt with the Tories. It is not an anti-imperialist party and it sure as hell ain't socialist.

It believes in parliamentarianism and cosociationalism just as SF do and always did and it makes deals with the Labour party in parallel.

Perhaps you should stop trying to draw parallels between the situation in occupied Ireland and a situation in New Zealand that you really don't understand.

If we were to believe you, you would say I don't understand the situation in NI either, even though I have spent months living there.

Hoggy_RS

16th August 2010, 20:14

If we were to believe you, you would say I don't understand the situation in NI either, even though I have spent months living there.

I don't think this idea of 'because you lived in an area you automatically are right on a topic concerning the area' is a heathy one. People make wild accusations on the situation in the north and cover their bullshit with "era i was there myself".

Adi Shankara

16th August 2010, 20:21

I don't think this idea of 'because you lived in an area you automatically are right on a topic concerning the area' is a heathy one. People make wild accusations on the situation in the north and cover their bullshit with "era i was there myself".

People often use such blanket concepts in order to avoid accountability when it comes to the legitimacy of their claims. a common ploy.

Android

16th August 2010, 20:55

I don't think this idea of 'because you lived in an area you automatically are right on a topic concerning the area' is a heathy one. People make wild accusations on the situation in the north and cover their bullshit with "era i was there myself".

I am glad you have said this because I have often come across Irish Republicans who shut down debate and discussion because they are automatically right on an issue because they live in NI.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

16th August 2010, 21:31

I don't think this idea of 'because you lived in an area you automatically are right on a topic concerning the area' is a heathy one. People make wild accusations on the situation in the north and cover their bullshit with "era i was there myself".

Alastair appears to like making these kinds of remarks concerning the first and the third-world and specific countries too, why would it suddenly become different when it concerns different parts of the first-world?

If we dont hold people to their own standards then whose standards do we hold them to? :confused: I wouldnt necessarily argue this against someone else, but theres no doubt that first-hand experience does help, right?

McCroskey

17th August 2010, 02:05

The Provos were a working class movement that during the 80s at least was fighting for more than a united Ireland. As oppressed workers flooded the ranks of Sinn Fein and the PIRA, they pushed it to the left and organised for socialist revolution. The prisoners held Marxist study sessions in their cells, and a close comrade of mine used to be in charge of Sinn Fein's political education department in Dublin - they were preaching socialism and practicing socialism. Of course the organisation was not unified around this and eventually right wing elements took control, but it was a very real and very significant force for a long time. The Provos in the 80s were lightyears closer to being a revolutionary Marxist organisation than trendy left groups like the SWP and CWI are even today. This is a basic historical fact that ultra-left sectarians and right-wing social democrats (like the CWI) attempt to disguise/ignore.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the provos distanced themselves from the stickies in the Official IRA precisely because the Officials had a marxist-leninist line. The provos started to stir the national, religious, historical and traditionalist feeling among the population to gain support, abandoning marxist tendencies and the aim for a "socialist reunified Ireland" in favour of just a "reunited ireland".

TheCultofAbeLincoln

17th August 2010, 06:48

I voted no. I do not believe that republicans in NI would be justified in an armed campaign to remove the British. On a theoretical level, sure anyone who is being oppressed has the rigt to stand up and attempt to remove the oppressor, but the demographics in NI seem to suggest that such an armed struggle launched today would be as successful as the first 'Troubles.' I realize I'm an outsider, but there does not seem to have been any fundamental changes in Northern Ireland which could show how armed rebellion would stand a greater chance of victory.

Is the British government really going to seperate itself from NI because of republican paramilitaries?

If anything, it seems that a peaceful NI would be a better candidate for independence from the UK. After centuries of protecting the protestant population in NI the image of the UK declaring that the situation has deteriorated to the point of abandoning (as it would surely look in many peoples eyes) this populace to republican paramilitaries isn't one that pops in the head as being plausible.

Let's consider this, what would be the predictable outcome if the British left NI at the height of a republican campaign of liberation? It seems only natural that those who were loyal to the UK will be in a tight spot and will more than likely defend themselves, no? (I would also say this is perhaps quite justifiable in many cases as well). If the foreigners were to leave and the remaining loyalists were to fight it out with the republicans (ie fake irish vs true irish is thats the way you look at it) who would probably win? The catholics may have had a bad shake, but the loyalists have the funds it seems and, quite frankly, probably won't be too keen to hand over their homes and leave OR agree to whatever Government the [insert name here] IRA puts in place.

Is the Republic of Ireland prepared to settle the differences?

Is the Republic of Ireland prepared to make the sacrifice of turning Belfast into Baghdad to attempt to remove any lingering loyalist forces should it be necessary? Is the Republic of Ireland ready to accept the republican paramilitaries as a new extension of their own state?

But naturally that doesn't seem to be an issue because the prospect of the british leaving due to these armed bands seems to be pretty small.

I believe devolution should be allowed to continue until all people in NI feel a little less tied to the UK or Ireland and moreso to NI itself. And the only way that can happen is through peace.

aty

17th August 2010, 13:03

Let's consider this, what would be the predictable outcome if the British left NI at the height of a republican campaign of liberation? It seems only natural that those who were loyal to the UK will be in a tight spot and will more than likely defend themselves, no? (I would also say this is perhaps quite justifiable in many cases as well). If the foreigners were to leave and the remaining loyalists were to fight it out with the republicans (ie fake irish vs true irish is thats the way you look at it) who would probably win? The catholics may have had a bad shake, but the loyalists have the funds it seems and, quite frankly, probably won't be too keen to hand over their homes and leave OR agree to whatever Government the [insert name here] IRA puts in place.

So you mean the republicans should give up their fight because of what reactionary fascists might do? Of course the loyalist society would be included into the new Ireland as was the case when the 26-counties became independent. The orange in the irish flag represents the protestant/loyalist/orange-society, they would not be asked to hand over their homes. Where do you people get these ideas from?

freepalestine

17th August 2010, 13:24

basically i'd support the end of british govt rule in ireland .
although the irish republican movement(s) seem to be in disarray.also

777

17th August 2010, 14:01

First of all, it makes me sick when people reduce the struggle in Ireland to some sort of religious one.

It was NEVER about religion, and ALWAYS about class! Some of the most celebrated Irish rebels have been Protestant or even Atheist! I don't know about the Loyalist "heros" but I am sure there are at least a few Catholics amongst their ranks, especially considering todays levels of so called social mobility.

The struggle has always been between the bosses and the workers. Most of the workers were Catholic. There was no tradition of Protestantism until the English came. The English invaders used military force to subjugate the peasantry.

The two communities remained separate due to economic inequality. This inequality persists today, but the lines between the two are now more blurred.

Irish republicans are Socialist. They want an end to economic inequality. It has nothing to do with "We're Irish, you're not! So go away or we'll lob a bit of sem-tex at you".

Irish republicans are at the front-line of the revolution. They are fighting to overthrow Britain inc, the corporate power that calls itself a state. They do not seek to replace it with an ultra-nationalist totalitarian state, but instead want to impliment Marxist ideals.

Could the troubles start all over again? They never went away. The inequality and the violence which comes from it are still there.

Would the RA be justified in taking action? Well it depends on how they take action. The Provos seem to have descended into criminal gangs, but on the other hand they have managed to create self-policing, semi-autonomous communities. They keep the people safe. They sell drugs, sure, but they also control who sells the drugs on and to who.

If they continue to engage civilians in sectarian violence then they have no justification for this. If they start to become more political in nature and only take defensive actions and choose political targets then they are likely justified.

Tiocfaidh Ar La!

ContrarianLemming

17th August 2010, 15:03

English and free-state anarchists didn't experience the Troubles. I don't care if the IRA bombed Manchester once in a blue moon, you didn't live under pogroms, internment, widespread British army checkpoints and sectarian death squads, surrounded by daily bombings, ambushes and assassinations.

Do you people this is what Northern Ireland is actually like daily?

Saorsa

17th August 2010, 15:24

Not to the same extent, but the nationalist community are still oppressed and discriminated against in a way the loyalist community is not.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

17th August 2010, 17:55

It's interesting that you say "nationalist" and "loyalist" community, as if automatically by being a Protestant that makes them a Loyalist.

Hoggy_RS

17th August 2010, 18:01

It's interesting that you say "nationalist" and "loyalist" community, as if automatically by being a Protestant that makes them a Loyalist.
You could say the same thing about you assuming that by them being loyalist they must be protestant.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

17th August 2010, 18:15

You could say the same thing about you assuming that by them being loyalist they must be protestant.

Oh very good, but you know as well as I do what his implication was and trying to turn it back on me won't change that.

aty

17th August 2010, 18:26

It's interesting that you say "nationalist" and "loyalist" community, as if automatically by being a Protestant that makes them a Loyalist.
Did he say that? No he did not. Stop playing with words.

Hoggy_RS

17th August 2010, 19:31

Oh very good, but you know as well as I do what his implication was and trying to turn it back on me won't change that.

It was a pointless thing to point out. republican or Nationalist community and loyalist or unionists community are accepted terms to describe the two side of the sectarian divide. They're just terms, it doesn't neccesarily describe every person in these communities.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

17th August 2010, 20:02

Did he say that? No he did not. Stop playing with words.

It was a pointless thing to point out. republican or Nationalist community and loyalist or unionists community are accepted terms to describe the two side of the sectarian divide. They're just terms, it doesn't neccesarily describe every person in these communities.

If you accept the sectarian divide and think that the other side is reactionary, then of course it will seem pointless. Don't you think that this is exactly what the British government want you to accept? http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/News&AnalysisIreland/News&AnalysisIreLoyalistIntimidationInEastBelfast.htm

Hoggy_RS

17th August 2010, 21:46

If you accept the sectarian divide and think that the other side is reactionary, then of course it will seem pointless. Don't you think that this is exactly what the British government want you to accept? http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/News&AnalysisIreland/News&AnalysisIreLoyalistIntimidationInEastBelfast.htm
When did i ever say the other side was reactionary? There is reactionaries on both sides. Dont be putting words in my mouth to try and paint as a nationalist when i am not. The sectarian divide has been created and pushed by the British government in order to stop working class unity which would be detremental to British imperialism. But the divide does exist and its something that needs to be overcome.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

17th August 2010, 22:05

When did i ever say the other side was reactionary? There is reactionaries on both sides. Dont be putting words in my mouth to try and paint as a nationalist when i am not. The sectarian divide has been created and pushed by the British government in order to stop working class unity which would be detremental to British imperialism. But the divide does exist and its something that needs to be overcome.

And you are legitimising the divide by using terms the bourgeoisie want you to use. If you label a town as labour or conservative, thats another example of using terms the bourgeoisie want you to use, same for calling whole towns racist or whatever.

By fighting the divide and in a lot of ways not accepting it, you are de-legitimising it and, despite the ideas you would get from Revleft about how workers in NI fully support only one movement or another, with no flexibility, things are a lot better than that. Engaging with workers who feel heavily tied to an identity, beyond their identity, goes a very long way. Okay sometimes it can backfire' it has done for me before (an Albanian fascist springs to mind), but its not enough to try and unite workers while accepting certain ruling class dichotomies. I guess at least you dont support Sinn Fein, which a lot of leftists here do.

Saorsa

18th August 2010, 02:37

It's interesting that you say "nationalist" and "loyalist" community, as if automatically by being a Protestant that makes them a Loyalist.

I never said that. Your reliance on strawmen indicates that you don't have confidence in your own arguments... Which is perfectly understandable.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

18th August 2010, 05:35

So you mean the republicans should give up their fight because of what reactionary fascists might do? Of course the loyalist society would be included into the new Ireland as was the case when the 26-counties became independent. The orange in the irish flag represents the protestant/loyalist/orange-society, they would not be asked to hand over their homes. Where do you people get these ideas from?

No, of course not. What I am saying is that for the loyalist members of society to become less so, I do not believe engaging any element of that group in an offensive armed campaign would be the best step forward. Engaging n armed struggle would, I believe, only intensify the divisiveness and lead to more segregation and less integration as one, peaceful, society.

And thank you for the extra info, I wasn't aware of that.

Hoggy_RS

18th August 2010, 10:16

And you are legitimising the divide by using terms the bourgeoisie want you to use. If you label a town as labour or conservative, thats another example of using terms the bourgeoisie want you to use, same for calling whole towns racist or whatever.

By fighting the divide and in a lot of ways not accepting it, you are de-legitimising it and, despite the ideas you would get from Revleft about how workers in NI fully support only one movement or another, with no flexibility, things are a lot better than that. Engaging with workers who feel heavily tied to an identity, beyond their identity, goes a very long way. Okay sometimes it can backfire' it has done for me before (an Albanian fascist springs to mind), but its not enough to try and unite workers while accepting certain ruling class dichotomies. I guess at least you dont support Sinn Fein, which a lot of leftists here do.
You've been using the abbreviation NI(Northern Ireland). So I see you have no problem using certain "terms the bourgeoisie want you to use". You see how ridiculous and petty you're being?

I'm well aware of what needs to be done to unite workers from both sides of the divide. I don't think anyone is claiming that all workers are supporters of one side or anything to that effect.

Jolly Red Giant

18th August 2010, 15:31

The struggle has always been between the bosses and the workers. Most of the workers were Catholic.
Not true - the majority of the working class in the North have always been Protestant - and that is still the case.

There was no tradition of Protestantism until the English came. The English invaders used military force to subjugate the peasantry.
The English were in Ireland for 400 years before the Protestant religion was even founded.

The two communities remained separate due to economic inequality. This inequality persists today, but the lines between the two are now more blurred.
Again not true - in 1970 over 70% of the people in the North lived in mixed religious areas - today well over 90% of the population live in Catholic only or Protestant only areas. Furthermore that differences between the working class and the remainder of society in the North are significantly more substantial that the difference between the Catholic and Protestant working class (indeed these days there are no differences).

Irish republicans are Socialist. They want an end to economic inequality. It has nothing to do with "We're Irish, you're not! So go away or we'll lob a bit of sem-tex at you".
Well there are a large number who are of the 'privatise everything, cut everything' variety of socialists.

Irish republicans are at the front-line of the revolution. They are fighting to overthrow Britain inc, the corporate power that calls itself a state. They do not seek to replace it with an ultra-nationalist totalitarian state, but instead want to impliment Marxist ideals.
See above - and they failed.

Could the troubles start all over again? They never went away. The inequality and the violence which comes from it are still there.
The violence does not come from the inequality between the Catholic and Protestant working class - it comes from British Imperialism.

Would the RA be justified in taking action? Well it depends on how they take action.
I would suggest that it depends on what type of action they take - the 'armed struggle' didn't work.

Not to the same extent, but the nationalist community are still oppressed and discriminated against in a way the loyalist community is not.
Maybe you could demonstrate some examples of this?

It was a pointless thing to point out. republican or Nationalist community and loyalist or unionists community are accepted terms to describe the two side of the sectarian divide. They're just terms, it doesn't neccesarily describe every person in these communities.
A sectarian division is based on religion - not politics. The conflict between the two communities is a sectarian conflict - based on religion. When it comes to sectarian attacks, they are motivated by the religion of the victims, not their political outlook.

There is reactionaries on both sides.
This is correct

The sectarian divide has been created and pushed by the British government in order to stop working class unity which would be detremental to British imperialism.
This is also correct

But the divide does exist and its something that needs to be overcome.
Yes indeed - the need for workers unity is the vital component.

Pavlov's House Party

18th August 2010, 15:41

I would support the IRA, (forgive my ignorance on the movement) even more so if their platform was for a war against the Irish bourgeois state for the establishment of socialism for all of Ireland. In the words of James Connolly:

"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs."

Jolly Red Giant

18th August 2010, 18:45

I would support the IRA, (forgive my ignorance on the movement) even more so if their platform was for a war against the Irish bourgeois state for the establishment of socialism for all of Ireland.
Interestingly enough - I am currently writing an article on the IOC strike in Ireland in 1930 - a nationwide bus strike that the company tried to break using scab labour. A prominent left-wing IRA man named Peadar O'Donnell was attempting to push the IRA in a leftward direction and steer the objectives of the IRA to supporting working class people in struggle. During the strike IRA men participated in attacks on the scabs hired by the company and engaged in vandalising IOC property. The strike lasted several weeks and was eventually won when the railway workers came out in solidarity with the busworkers. Shortly afterwards O'Donnell left the IRA and became a founder member of the left-wing Republican Congress.

The IRA engaged in attacks on Republican Congress members including a vicious sectarian attack on the 36 members of the Shankill Road branch of Reblican Congress who were at the Bodenstown commemoration in 1934. The RC members were carrying a banner with the slogan "Unite Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter to break the connection with Capitalism". The Republican Congress split shortly afterwards when one faction called for a 'united front with republicans', while the other wanted to campaign for a 'workers republic'. Both O'Donnell and the Communist Party of Ireland supported the 'united front' strategy.

Hoggy_RS

18th August 2010, 19:22

Interestingly enough - I am currently writing an article on the IOC strike in Ireland in 1930 - a nationwide bus strike that the company tried to break using scab labour. A prominent left-wing IRA man named Peadar O'Donnell was attempting to push the IRA in a leftward direction and steer the objectives of the IRA to supporting working class people in struggle. During the strike IRA men participated in attacks on the scabs hired by the company and engaged in vandalising IOC property. The strike lasted several weeks and was eventually won when the railway workers came out in solidarity with the busworkers. Shortly afterwards O'Donnell left the IRA and became a founder member of the left-wing Republican Congress.

The IRA engaged in attacks on Republican Congress members including a vicious sectarian attack on the 36 members of the Shankill Road branch of Reblican Congress who were at the Bodenstown commemoration in 1934. The RC members were carrying a banner with the slogan "Unite Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter to break the connection with Capitalism". The Republican Congress split shortly afterwards when one faction called for a 'united front with republicans', while the other wanted to campaign for a 'workers republic'. Both O'Donnell and the Communist Party of Ireland supported the 'united front' strategy.
Aye tis a pity the republican congress lasted such a short time, their ideas were extremely progressive and would have been an extremely postive influence in the republican movement.

This is correct

This is also correct

Yes indeed - the need for workers unity is the vital component.

It looks like our politics aren't so different eh JRG?:lol:

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

18th August 2010, 22:09

You've been using the abbreviation NI(Northern Ireland). So I see you have no problem using certain "terms the bourgeoisie want you to use". You see how ridiculous and petty you're being?

What's wrong with using the term NI? Geographically the area is the north of Ireland. It's different to saying Ulster when I am not including the counties in the R.O.I, as that would indicate a political bias towards Unionism. So I would not use the word Ulster unless I was also referring to the counties that are in the R.O.I geographically.

I'm well aware of what needs to be done to unite workers from both sides of the divide. I don't think anyone is claiming that all workers are supporters of one side or anything to that effect.No but the majority are or something, which is the constant line pushed by marxist-leninists. Just like the majority of Israeli workers are reactionary, British workers are reactionary etc. You don't have to outrightly state something to imply it.

I never said that. Your reliance on strawmen indicates that you don't have confidence in your own arguments... Which is perfectly understandable.

Well at least your not hiding behind the façade of niceness anymore. ;) My last point relates to this.

Adi Shankara

5th September 2010, 07:35

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/09/05/n_ireland_efforts_for_youths_strained/

budget cuts for centers attempting to bridge the divide. Britain doesn't want the conflict to end, it seems.

Cencus

5th September 2010, 09:21

The nationalist cause in N. Ireland is already won, just some are too blind to see it.

The current state of play (stormont etc) is just a holding tactic to try n keep the peace until such time as a referendum can be held that will allow Westminster to dump Ulster onto Dublin.

No U.K. Government could just leave Ulster without essentially committing suicide, hence the need for a referendum and the need for a stop gap solution until demographics allow for a predictable result in favour of the nationalist cause.

Justa note - there's a few posts in here mentioning "Ireland for the Celts". The protestants in Ulster are largely Scots, themselves Celts.