re: Introductions

[Viet Minh]

In response to some replies on the introductions section (I am restricted there now)


He would have been genuinely progressive 350 years ago, but he is 350 years too late!

Did he just walk out of a Time Machine or something? :lol:


So...basically you are an anarchist?? 0_o


Anarcho-Monarchism sounds intriguing. :laugh:

Like I say I don't label myself as anything, if you want to ask me about specific views I have on specific subjects I'm happy to answer, or you can check out my response to the political survey. I find it hard to believe anyone subscribes wholesale to one particular ideology, be it marxism, anarcho-syndicalism, whatever. Surely there are elements you disagree with and elements you agree with?

PS Anarcho-Monarchism, I like that! As long as I'm the King :D


Welcome! I don't post much here, but I do like to read and learn on this forum. I get the vibe that politically you aren't yet completely made-up yet, so I recommend looking into some of the theory and learning stuff as well, as well as some of the tendancies of interesting posters to try and gain a good leftist perspective.

Thank you! Yes I'm here to learn, unfortunately I was put on the defensive a bit, but the mods have been kind enough not to ban me, so hopefully I can stay around long enough to learn more.


The UVF on the other hand are Marxist.


WTF:confused:

Well strictly speaking the PUP/ UVF stand for social Democracy or Democratic Socialism but their origins are Marxist.


I'm of the conclusion that this user is a crypto-fash troll.

To what end? Usually the trolls are Republicans pretending to be Loyalist Fascists, so presumably you think i am a Nationalist Fascist, surely such a thing doesn't exist? :D But srsly, calling troll to everyone you disagree with is juvenile.


Gather a mob to chant "Restrict! Restrict! Restrict!"

There already is it seems! :blink:


Yes... doesn't it though. :D

I really want to hear his theory about it.

Anarcho Monarchism. Hmm I suppose you could have one know-it-all who runs the entire country based solely on his/ her beliefs, and who then hands the reigns down to their children.. :cubaflag: ;)

Now THAT was trolling! :D

[Ele'ill]

Hi.

You can post your introductions and such here http://www.revleft.com/vb/inmate-39-s-t60521/index.html

[Che a chara]

In response to some replies on the introductions section (I am restricted there now)

Welcome, it be good to debate and hear the views of a progressive unionist on here :) (i'm a republican socialist BTW)


Thank you! Yes I'm here to learn, unfortunately I was put on the defensive a bit, but the mods have been kind enough not to ban me, so hopefully I can stay around long enough to learn more.

You def don't deserve a ban.


Well strictly speaking the PUP/ UVF stand for social Democracy or Democratic Socialism but their origins are Marxist.

Dude, I think it's a bit vertical to say that their politics have marxist roots. Sure they differ from the more mainstream unionist groups and are very active in working class loyalist areas, but loyalism/unionism as a whole is inherently right-wing and non-inclusive.

The UVF were/are far from social democratic. They were a cold blooded sectarian death squad up to their necks in eyeballs criminality and state collusion.


To what end? Usually the trolls are Republicans pretending to be Loyalist Fascists,

Eh ? revleft has had its fair share of loyalist trolls with their typical past revisionism and trying to justify the occupation, British imperialism and oppression.


Anarcho Monarchism. Hmm I suppose you could have one know-it-all who runs the entire country based solely on his/ her beliefs, and who then hands the reigns down to their brother.. :cubaflag: ;)

That's a bit harsh on Cuba me finks (anyways, fixed that for ye ;) :) )

[Viet Minh]

Welcome, it be good to debate and hear the views of a progressive unionist on here :) (i'm a republican socialist BTW)

You def don't deserve a ban.

Thanks! Nice to be here :)


Dude, I think it's a bit vertical to say that their politics have marxist roots. Sure they differ from the more mainstream unionist groups and are very active in working class loyalist areas, but loyalism/unionism as a whole is inherently right-wing and non-inclusive.

The PUP are self-described as Democratic Socialists, and in my opinion they fit this description. No doubt that's not the whole story, and they probably differ somewhat in opinions (recently some members left due to what they consider the parties move towards Conservatism) but I think its only fair to take them at their word since they are not actually in power and have thus not demonstrated any non-Socialist principles.

Of course I disagree with you about loyalism being inherently right-wing, although I cannot argue it is non-inclusive, and sadly prejudiced. I am not averse to anti-theism in principle, but to discriminate against individuals based on religion is moronic in the extreme. I think the Republican movement has been lucky having had a fair amount of Protestant support since even the times of the Boyne, and far far less of a sectarian agenda, although it has been present. Much of the modern loyalist culture (and indeed the troubles themselves) came about from the Ulster Workers Council Strikes, which is why I believe the loyalist movement to be essentially left wing, as is the Republican movement. The key difference is the Unionists are the majority, which allows them to favour a Democratic Socialism, and the Republicans the minority, which means they tend towards the radical revolutionary.


The UVF were/are far from social democratic. They were a cold blooded sectarian death squad up to their necks in eyeballs criminality and state collusion.

They were formed as a defensive force against the IRA, and ostensibly to protect loyalist civilians (it was generally felt the British state didn't do enough to protect 'its people') but yes, like the UDA and arguably the IRA they did target innocent civilians. There's no justification (to either side) but it was close to a civil war and nobody really knew what was happening or who was involved. Various instances of collusion have been uncovered, but largely the British State seemed to want to keep the peace, bear in mind there were also instances of gardai/ dail collusion with republicans. I am no rampant apologist for the British State btw.


Eh ? revleft has had its fair share of loyalist trolls with their typical past revisionism and trying to justify the occupation, British imperialism and oppression.

I've not been here for long, I meant on social networks etc, that's just my experience however.


That's a bit harsh on Cuba me finks (anyways, fixed that for ye ;) :) )

Thanks! If I eat a bullet tonight I've you to thank! :laugh: Jokes! :p

[ComradeMan]

A couple of questions to loyal4life & Quarterback.

I saw a documentary that was about the situation in N.Ireland. Could you confirm or explain the following please:-

1) Before the "troubles" started in the late 60s with the civil rights movements
a) N.Ireland was an autonomous region of the UK, i.e. it was governed not from London directly?
b) Catholics did not have rights and faced discrimination within the institutions?

2) When the civil rights movements gained momentum there was a "protestant" or "loyalist" backlash and the British Army was sent to protect the Catholic citizens of N.Ireland? :confused: Autonomy was taken away from N.Ireland as a result and direct rule from London was established?

[danyboy27]

what do you think of the EDL?

[Viet Minh]

A couple of questions to loyal4life & Quarterback.

I saw a documentary that was about the situation in N.Ireland. Could you confirm or explain the following please:-

1) Before the "troubles" started in the late 60s with the civil rights movements

Yes and no, there has been organised mob violence in N.I since the days of the Whiteboys and early Orange Order, which some would see as a continuation of earlier wars in Ireland. The civil rights movement in N.I, although associated with such groups as Sinn Fein/ IRA, was initially peaceful, but after bloody sunday became increasingly associated with violence from the security forces and protesters.


a) N.Ireland was an autonomous region of the UK, i.e. it was governed not from London directly?

N.I has had a devolved parliament of sorts since the 1970's.


b) Catholics did not have rights and faced discrimination within the institutions?

The laws were the same for Catholics and Protestants, and indeed Republicans and Loyalists, but there was a general feeling that the Protestants had a better deal. For instance Harland and Wolff was a Protestant-owned shipbuilding company, and discriminated against catholics (before the days of the equal opportunities act) in terms of wages and hours etc. Other issues were housing, although it is generally believed that the Shankill road, which is among the most 'loyalist' of areas, was the poorest in Belfast. Most areas were segregated though, each community had their own pubs, shops, houses and schools etc. And there was no doubt a sectarian undercurrent across N.I, in fact there still is, this would be felt more significantly by the Republican side as they were generally the underdogs, and arguably the poorer community overall.


2) When the civil rights movements gained momentum there was a "protestant" or "loyalist" backlash and the British Army was sent to protect the Catholic citizens of N.Ireland? :confused: Autonomy was taken away from N.Ireland as a result and direct rule from London was established?

I don't think its fair to say the loyalists were attacking the civil rights movement per se, in fact there were many who were against a United Ireland but for civil rights. On the back of the Civil rights movement there was an uprise in the violence between communities, as indeed there had been in Belfast since at least the 18th century. But yes, the British Army were sent in response to violent attacks on Catholic communities, and initially at least the Catholics welcomed the British Army with tea and sandwiches, a strange fact of history. The Irish army were also ready to invade to protect Nationalist citizens, and were positioned along the border.


what do you think of the EDL?

Me? I think they are a bunch of morons, fuelled into a ridiculous mob rule mentality by irresponsible and sensationalist tabloid journalism and racist propaganda. St George will be turning in his grave