Opinions on the IRA?

[Comrade Jacob]

What are your opinions on the IRA, they call themselves Socialists and they oppose occupation (obviously), how should we feel about them? They are recognised as a terrorist group but so are the Naxalites and many of us support them...
I am very against then bombing shops and religious groups because it makes them look like wackos but I agree with Irish republicanism and British republicanism.

[human strike]

The I, The I, The I don't care.

But in all seriousness, there's nothing communist or revolutionary about the IRA.

[UncleLenin]

I think that they were not effective enough. Instead of bombing random shops and killing Protestants, they should have targeted military bases. If they were to do this I would support them.

[Sasha]

Which IRA? I mean, all national liberation is a dead end but are we talking pre-irish independence legitimate mass movement IRA, understandable and somewhat sympathetic when blowing up thatcher instead of soldiers on leave and inocent passersby troubles era IRA or stupid idiots who spend more time shooting magic mustoom dealers current IRA (pira, cira, ira-ml, peoples front of ira orwhatever what 4 psychopats with a shotgun decide to call themselves)?

[TheEmancipator]

The original IRA was not a full terrorist organisation and lived in a time when it was mainly sabotage instead of the modern day civilian-orientated terrorism. I am talking about, of course, the IRA that fought for the Republic of Ireland's full and legitimate independence from British Imperialist rule.

Times changed, Northern Ireland stayed British as there was a Protestant majority there. The higher echelons Provisional, Real and Continuity IRA should all be held with utter contempt for their antics during the Troubles, and they are without a doubt terrorist organisation, although less so than Ulster Volunteers Force and UDA fascists. The reason why they are terrorist is because they not only bomb protestant folk for sectarian religious reasons, but they also terrorised their own communites and forced them under the grip of their own rule (which is still preferable to the RUC, but still unacceptable). If you get hard ons for terrorist organisations, at least support the ones who had a consistent platform (and who subsequently endured attacks from the Provvies more than anyone else) like the INLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Liberation_Army)

If you want a run down of the ideological rhetoric behind the terrorist organisations, here goes (take it with a pinch of salt) :

Provisional IRA : Social Democrat, Nationalist, a bit Left Communist but not as revolutionary
Continuity IRA : Revolutionary, Nationalist, small Socialist rhetoric
INLA : Marxist-Leninist, anti-secterian (in some ways)
Real IRA : have lost any ideological framework apart from "Free Northern Ireland"
Ulster Volunteers Force : right-wing reactionary protestants
Ulster Defence Association : Neo-Nazi, Fascist, actually called for Northern Irish independence because they thought Thatcher was "too soft". Disgusting racists.

Anyway, we have the Good Friday agreement now, and the progress being made is staggering. What is a shame is that the political parties are community-orientated, so you get vile religious nutjobs like Ian Paisley Jr and David Vance at the forefront of Unionist politics, claiming to be British yet refusing to follow Westminster on things like abortion and gay marriage. Then there is Sinn Fein, which generally attracts left-wing republicans, but remains for me a prime example of Third Way catch all politics with blatant nationalism and religious privileges being conserved.

Basically, they aim for popular support more than real socialist measures. They are clining on to secterian divides as this is what oxygenates their popular support. Its no wonder then that the extremists on both Unionist and Nationalist sides have collaborated in order to make sure who is top dog in the two communities.

I'm sure there were many heroes in the Irish Republican movement, whose ideas I am willing to support, not least Bobby Sands, a clearly brave individual. But the organisations that fronted the movement, as always, were corrupt, self promoting and certainly not socialist.

[tachosomoza]

I like the fact that they aided the ANC struggle against apaetheid in South Africa.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

First of all, I think it's important to remember how the troubles started.

Historically, the Irish working class had been relatively united in their national identity, however after numerous rebellions against the English ruling class, the English began to employ a divide and conquer strategy in Ireland, denying the catholic Irish to public services and voting which largely continued into the 80's. On the other hand Protestants received numerous privileges from their English conquers. In the 17th century the Orange Order was formed as a paramilitary organization of wealthy loyalist Protestants that functioned similar to how Salwa Judum functioned. In response the Catholics formed a self defense force somewhat similar the Black Panthers. A recent article by the IMT puts it better than I could:


There were two significant developments in the last decade of the 18th century. One was the creation of the Orange Order; the other was the formation of The Society of United Irishmen. In 1784 there arose in Ulster an extreme Anglican Protestant organisation whose purpose was to drive Catholic tenant farmers out of the most fertile farmland in Ulster. The organisation was called The Peep of Day Boys because of the practise of raiding Catholic farmhouses at daybreak. Catholic farmers were warned to abandon their homes under threat of death.

In response the Catholics formed a group called The Defenders to beat off their attackers. The struggle continued sporadically for a few years until the Anglicans, always better armed than their adversaries, succeeded in their aim. To this day all the best farmland in Eastern Ulster is Protestant-owned, while the poorer, low-yielding hill-top farms are worked by Catholics. It should be emphasised that The Peep of Day Boys was an Anglican Organisation and evolving from this The Orange Order was formed in 1795.

It is commonly believed that the Orange Order was a type of farmer’s union for the protection of the poorer tenant farmers. This is a misconception. For several years no Presbyterians were allowed to join the Orange Order. That only changed when the ruling classes saw in it the very weapon they needed to divide and rule the Irish working class.

The Orange Order was set up originally by Anglicans, the Church of the landlords and aristocrats which oppressed both Catholics and Presbyterians. It was founded on ignoble principles to further the interests of the rich landlords and aristocrats and to keep the poor in their place. It became the bastion of big businessmen and rich merchants who later encouraged Presbyterians to join, fooling them into thinking it was in their own interests to do so.

It was also used as a counter measure to the Society of United Irishmen which was endeavouring to unite both Catholics and Protestants in a campaign for an independent republic of Ireland. In later years, when workers tried to fight for their rights to a better standard of living the Orange Order was used as an army of bully-boys to smash the unions. In 1912, British labour leader Ramsay MacDonald wrote:

“In Belfast you get labour conditions the like of which you get in no other town, no other city of equal commercial prosperity from John O’Groats to Lands End or from the Atlantic to the North Sea. It is maintained by an exceedingly simple device… whenever there is an attempt to root out sweating in Belfast the Orange big drum is beaten…”.

Still despite these conflicts, the Irish identity remained intact and the United Irishmen launched a rebellion with both Catholic and Protestant backing. So the English furthered their campaign of structural discrimination against Catholics:


The English ruling classes were in a state of panic. They had just been kicked out of their American colonies, and now there was a revolution in France. The French peasantry and citizenry had overthrown their aristocratic masters and taken over the running of their own country. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the French army commanded by some little upstart general called Napoleon was knocking seven bells out of every other army on the continent of Europe. There was a very real danger that the revolution would spread to England and that would be game over for the English aristocracy. This outcome would be all the more likely if the Irish Catholics and Protestants were to successfully unite and kick the English out of Ireland. An independent Republic of Ireland would soon lead to the English workers declaring a Republic of England. It was absolutely vital for them to stop Ireland from gaining its independence.

The Act of Union, 1801, had already removed the Irish parliament from Dublin to London. The next step was to prevent the Irish Catholics and Protestants from ever uniting forces again by building an unbreakable barrier of bigotry between them. This was done by a combination of bribery and propaganda. First, the Presbyterian clergymen had to be persuaded to stop agitating for an independent Ireland. No problem – give them money! Each Presbyterian minister was given an annual allowance of £75, a lot of money in those days, on condition that he became a loyal Unionist. Soon the Presbyterian clergy were the staunchest advocates of the Unionist cause.

Next, the Belfast businessmen, hell-bent on independence, had to be placated. This was done by removing trade restrictions, tariffs and custom duties which had made it extremely difficult for Irish business to compete with England. When the Belfast businessmen started to get rich they too began to see that it was in their own interest to defend the Union.

It now remained to win over the Presbyterian working class to the Unionist cause. This was achieved by relentless, unceasing and blatantly false propaganda. Although the Society of United Irishmen was a Protestant concept, and mainly Protestant led, it was now being branded as a Catholic plot to gain dominance in Ireland. From every pulpit the Presbyterian clergy denounced the United Irishmen and all they stood for. They warned Protestants of the horrors that awaited them if they ever came under Catholic rule. Powerful preachers such as the reverends Thomas Drew and Hugh (roaring) Hannah terrified them with tales of the torture and agonising death by fire that was in store for them if the Catholics took over.

The reason why preachers like Drew and Hannah were so convincing is because they genuinely believed that what they were saying was true. They believed it because the dreaded Spanish Inquisition, although very much a spent force, was still in existence (it officially came to an end in 1834). In all the long history of man’s inhumanity to man there is no more horrifying chapter than that of The Holy Office of the Inquisition, to give it its official title; an almost five-hundred-year-long reign of terror from which no man or woman, not even the most rich and powerful, was safe. Torture, garrotting, burning at the stake or being buried alive was the inevitable fate of anyone who fell foul of the Inquisition. Not even corpses were immune. Dead bodies were often dug up, tried and burned.

It was only too easy to implant mental images of these horrors in the minds of the Protestant community in Ireland, so it is no surprise that when the Anglican Orange Order opened its membership to all non-Catholics the Presbyterian businessmen and workers joined up en masse. Thus was history turned upside-down. William of Orange, who had so treacherously betrayed the Presbyterians of Ulster and driven many thousands of them to emigrate to America because of persecution under his government, was now remembered as their hero and saviour from Catholic tyranny. The Ulster Presbyterians, once the most determined group fighting for separation from England, were now the most strident advocates of the Union. You’ve got to hand it to the British ruling classes; they are past masters when it comes to manipulating the hearts and minds of the people.
Thus we can see in a historic case study how imperialism uses settler colonialism to prop up its rule.

After the Ireland was sedated somewhat, the British went about trying to industrialize Ireland to make it a productive part of the empire. However there was a problem: most Irishmen were self employed farmers who had no desire to work in the factories. So it was the task of British Imperialism to force them to the factory. Marx referred to this as primitive accumulation, where private property could only exist as long as communal property became impossible:


As soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and “labour” were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.......

In the history of primitive accumulation, all revolutions are epoch-making that act as levers for the capital class in course of formation; but, above all, those moments when great masses of men are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled as free and “unattached” proletarians on the labour-market. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil, is the basis of the whole process. The history of this expropriation, in different countries, assumes different aspects, and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, and at different periods. In England alone, which we take as our example, has it the classic form.

26th Chapter of Das Kapital
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm

So how were the bourgeois to achieve such a task?

The Irish peasantry at that time was not allow the products of its own labor, instead they survived on communally collected potato farms that they harvested. Potatoes being the best food for sustenance due to the fact that they have a incredibly high yield and grow quickly. When the Potato was introduced to Ireland, almost every peasantry adapted it and depended on it. So when a disease was introduced to Ireland by natural forces which destroyed Potatoes, an entire nation was left without food and a famine ensued. However, instead of seeing this as a problem, the English ruling class saw this as an opportunity to carry out primitive accumulation:


Kelly, like most historians, places the brunt of the responsibility for this fiasco on the shoulders of Trevelyan. As the policy leader of the famine response program, Trevelyan was not a Mengele-style mad scientist but a civil servant known for his “unbending moral rectitude and personal intensity.” Unfortunately for the Irish, the faith he embraced was a fusion of Moralism, “an evangelical sect that preached a passionate gospel of self-help” and the laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. At several key points in the evolution of the catastrophe, when strategic intervention might have fended off thousands of deaths, Trevelyan refused, maintaining that there was no greater evil than interfering with market forces. When a subordinate protested, he would send him a copy of Burke’s “Thoughts and Details on Scarcity.”

The Irish economy was backward and precarious,
but for Trevelyan the failure of the potato crop presented not a life-or-death crisis but an opportunity to forcibly modernize it. He agreed to a limited public works program (in which out-of-work laborers were paid a pittance to build roads to nowhere) because he believed it would break the peasant class of its reliance on barter and subsistence farming. The idea was to sell them corn imported from overseas because the grain couldn’t be cultivated in Ireland, thereby accustoming them to using money. However, when Ireland’s mercantile men objected to the price-depressing effects of government-funded grain, Trevelyan vowed not to sell it too cheaply, claiming that high prices would promote foreign imports.

These strategies amount to the 19th-century version of what Naomi Klein has dubbed the “Shock Doctrine”: an attempt to force economic reforms on a population reeling in the aftermath of a disaster. Kelly intersperses the nitty gritty of the shifting Irish economic situation with horrific glimpses of its human toll: streets jammed with gaunt, half-naked wraiths who had sold their clothes for food, families gathered mutely in miserable cottages to die, unburied corpses by the roadside, entire hamlets razed by landlords seeking to evict “dead weight” tenants they’d otherwise have to help. If only these unfortunates could have sought comfort in “Thoughts and Details on Scarcity”!
From “The Graves Are Walking”: Was the Great Potato Famine a genocide?
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/19/the_graves_are_walking_was_the_great_potato_famine _a_genocide/

And thus, after the death of 1 million peasants, Ireland join the modern world!

But of course, these events only increased Irish nationalist sentiments, and after a period of class struggle, the Irish Independence War of 1918 finally broke South Ireland from England, however England kept North Ireland in an attempt to crush the fledgling state as North Ireland contained most of Ireland's industrial and Financial wealth. (There is a passage from the Dubliners I would like to quote but I think that I ought to get to the point soon.)

In order to prop up their rule, the English continued their policy of supporting Protestant settlers in Ireland at the expense of Irish Catholics, creating an apartheid state in Northern Ireland. Inspired by examples in America, the Irish Catholic community began a campaign of non-violent protest in 1964 to address their grievances. They demanded:

-An end to job discrimination – it showed evidence that Catholics/nationalists were less likely to be given certain jobs, especially government jobs
public housing to be allocated on the basis of need rather than religion or political views – it showed evidence that unionist-controlled local councils allocated housing to Protestants ahead of Catholics/nationalists
-One man, one vote – in NI, only householders could vote in local elections, while in the rest of the UK all adults could vote
-An end to gerrymandering of electoral boundaries – this meant that nationalists had less voting power than unionists, even where nationalists were a majority
-Reform of the police force (Royal Ulster Constabulary or RUC) – it was almost 100% Protestant and accused of sectarianism and police brutality
repeal of the Special Powers Act – this allowed police to search without a warrant, arrest and imprison people without charge or trial, ban any assemblies or parades, and ban any publications; the Act was used almost exclusively against nationalists and republicans

In response, the Protestant community formed the Ulster Volunteer Force and began a campaign of violent harassment against Irish Catholics to preserve their colonial privilege. Their campaign of violence began on 7 May 1966 when they petrol bombed a Catholic-owned pub in the Shankill. The fire killed the elderly Protestant widow who lived next door. Still, despite the violence the Catholics continued to demand equality while many Loyalists counter demonstrated to ban Catholic civil rights marches. The violence continued, In March and April 1969, UVF and UPV members bombed water and electricity installations in Northern Ireland in an attempt to deprive Catholics of the necessities to live in the modern world.

The English sent in the military to occupy Ireland in what the international community presumed as a mission to end violence there. Originally catholic communities hoped that the English would maintain order as a neutral arbiter of the conflict. However these hopes were soon ended when on 1972, Irish Catholics marched on Derry to demand civil rights and the British military opened fire, and slaughtered 14 civil rights demonstrators. I feel that pictures are necessary to demonstrate the sheer horrific nature of this event, since I am not capable of describing it in words:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YmgfjFB-FRo/ToB_-AXJxwI/AAAAAAAACsQ/utdEuHqfFZE/s320/1123070184868_Bloody_Sunday_Attack_Picture.jpg

http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bloody-sunday-massacre-derry-ireland-1972-2.jpg?w=700

http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bloody-sunday-massacre-derry-ireland-1972-3.jpg?w=700

In response to this massacre, and other acts of violence, the Provisional IRA began a campaign of armed warfare against the British state in order to in independence for Ireland and full legal equality for her people. Loyalists responded by waging a campaign of violence against catholic civilians.

The British responded, with the wholesale slaughter of Irish Catholics. There are too many instances of civilian killings to be named, but of course there is the Ballymurphy Massacre in which the British killed 11 irishmen. When the campaign of violence failed, the British gathered over 300 Catholics and placed them in concentration camps in 1971 and internment overall placed 1,981 in concentration camps, 1,874 of which were catholic. The vast majority of which were innocent of violent crime, their only crime was that of being Irish. These men and woman, many of which were leaders of the civil rights movement were subject to horrendous acts of torture.

Due to the complete failure of the British Military to quell the resistance of the Irish people and the IRA, the British began colluding with Loyalist forces. The key benefit in such an act being that the British could not openly slaughter Catholics all the time while maintaining international support. So arming loyalist groups served the function of giving the British Military the ability to intimidate and kill whoever they liked withing getting the blame. The Glenanne Gang which was formed as a combined effort of Loyalists and the military, slaughtered 87 civilians in its existence. Indeed, although I can not find the source right now, I once read a statistic that said that 10% of loyalist paramilitaries were RUC men. The British military even had some joint patrols with Loyalist groups in the early period of the occupation and allowed its members to join paramilitary groups. And in 1994, a document was leaked from the Ulster Defense Force which planned for an ethic cleansing of all Catholics in Northern Ireland (Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. pp.184–185.) which would make the British Military collaborators in acts of genocide.

I think this adequately demonstrates the legitimacy of the IRA's campaign of armed struggle.

And for those who are accusing the IRA of being an overtly violence organization, the actual statistics speak for themselves:


Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland:
Of those killed by British security forces:
187 (~51.5%) were civilians
145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces

Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:

1080 (~52%) were members of the British security forces
728 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
56 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
10 (~0.4%) were members of the Irish security forces

Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:

868 (~85.4%) were civilians
93 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1.3%) were members of the British security forces

These statistics demonstrate that even though the IRA was an organization who used primitive mortars and explosives to attack the British who had an entire legal apparatus for arresting people without the recourse to violence, that they were still able to have a significantly lower rate of civilian causalities in comparison to the British military and their loyalist henchmen. Which leds us to conclude that when the IRA claims that it has no intentions of targeting civilians, that they are speaking earnestly since their actions have proved this, while that the British military's claim of respecting human life and civilians, is complete bunk.

[Devrim]

If you want a run down of the ideological rhetoric behind the terrorist organisations, here goes (take it with a pinch of salt) :

Provisional IRA : Social Democrat, Nationalist, a bit Left Communist but not as revolutionary


I think that perhaps you don't understand what left communism is. This should be taken with a salt mine. ;)1

Devrim

[Redmau5]

I am talking about, of course, the IRA that fought for the Republic of Ireland's full and legitimate independence from British Imperialist rule.

The IRA from 1919 to 1921 didn't fight for the independence of what is now the Republic of Ireland. They fought for the independence of the entire 32-county island of Ireland. I was born in "Northern Ireland". Am I not entitled to "full and legitimate" independence from British rule?


The reason why they are terrorist is because they not only bomb protestant folk for sectarian religious reasons

Another lie which has been peddled by the mainstream British establishment so much over the years that it's just accepted as fact. I agree the IRA committed some terrible atrocities against ordinary protestant civilians, but they were political, not religious. They weren't running around with rosary beads around their neck and shouting about the pope while they were on operations.


but they also terrorised their own communites and forced them under the grip of their own rule (which is still preferable to the RUC, but still unacceptable).

:lol:

I am from one of these communities that you speak of. While there were always people who disagreed with the IRA, the vast majority of people in our areas supported the IRA. They are still called republican areas now and they were even more republican during the war. The fact is, the IRA would not have been able to sustain a 30-year campaign if it did not have a massive support network.

100,000 people lined the Falls road for Bobby Sands funeral. That gives you an idea of the support they had.


Anyway, we have the Good Friday agreement now, and the progress being made is staggering. What is a shame is that the political parties are community-orientated, so you get vile religious nutjobs like Ian Paisley Jr and David Vance at the forefront of Unionist politics, claiming to be British yet refusing to follow Westminster on things like abortion and gay marriage. Then there is Sinn Fein, which generally attracts left-wing republicans, but remains for me a prime example of Third Way catch all politics with blatant nationalism and religious privileges being conserved.

What progress? Of course it's great that we have peace, and the majority of people never want to go back, but a lot of things haven't really changed at all. Internment without trial still exists, albeit on a much more selective scale, and sectarian attitudes are entrenched as ever, as demonstrated by the recent flag and Twelfth of July protests.


Basically, they aim for popular support more than real socialist measures. They are clining on to secterian divides as this is what oxygenates their popular support. Its no wonder then that the extremists on both Unionist and Nationalist sides have collaborated in order to make sure who is top dog in the two communities.

I totally agree with you on this.


I'm sure there were many heroes in the Irish Republican movement, whose ideas I am willing to support, not least Bobby Sands, a clearly brave individual. But the organisations that fronted the movement, as always, were corrupt, self promoting and certainly not socialist.

The "organisation" was the people, the IRA drew its membership from ordinary working-class communities who had seen brutal injustices committed against them and the generations before them. While I agree that certain individuals in the leadership were corrupt and self-serving (as we can see now with Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams), the ordinary volunteers who made up the IRA were anything but self promoting and in many cases held socialist beliefs. They were risking their freedom and their lives to try and rid their country of the scourge of imperialism which has blighted it for centuries.

[Redmau5]

The I, The I, The I don't care.

But in all seriousness, there's nothing communist or revolutionary about the IRA.

There were plenty of revolutionaries in the IRA.

You probably couldn't tell that from your armchair though.

[Sea]

100,000 people lined the Falls road for Bobby Sands funeral. That gives you an idea of the support they had.100,000? That's nothing!

http://images.bimedia.net/images/080518_obama_family.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Richard_Nixon_campaign_rally_1968.png
http://www.leninimports.com/nuremberg_party_rallies_gallery_main_2.jpg

[Ace High]

Perhaps if they hadn't bombed innocent people, they would get my support. They are nothing but nationalist terrorists. Don't be fooled.

[Dr Doom]

the IRA helped fuel sectarian violence and division and now their political wing help implement neo liberal attacks on the working class. whats not to like.



Another lie which has been peddled by the mainstream British establishment so much over the years that it's just accepted as fact. I agree the IRA committed some terrible atrocities against ordinary protestant civilians, but they were political, not religious. They weren't running around with rosary beads around their neck and shouting about the pope while they were on operations.

yeaaah ok and what was the massacre at kingsmill then. i think ordering 11 men, on their way home from work, off of a bus and shooting the protestants and letting the single catholic worker leave unharmed has a slight religious vibe to it.


At first, the workers assumed that they were being stopped and searched by a British Army or RUC checkpoint, and when ordered to line up beside the bus, they obeyed. At this point the lead gunman ordered the only Catholic, Richard Hughes, to step forward. Hughes' workmates—thinking that the armed men were loyalists who had come to kill him—tried to stop him from identifying himself.

also im not sure why a 'political' massacre is somehow preferable to a 'religious' one. killing people over nationalism is hardly something you should be trying excuse, but i guess for a lot of republicans, people from a unionist/protestant background are more or less non-entities.

[Redmau5]

100,000? That's nothing!

http://images.bimedia.net/images/080518_obama_family.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Richard_Nixon_campaign_rally_1968.png
http://www.leninimports.com/nuremberg_party_rallies_gallery_main_2.jpg

Comparing a guerrilla resistance movement with the world's supreme capitalist superpower and Nazi Germany? OK........


They are nothing but nationalist terrorists. Don't be fooled

You sound no different than Margaret Thatcher in the 80s.


the IRA helped fuel sectarian violence and division and now their political wing help implement neo liberal attacks on the working class. whats not to like.

I agree with you about the neo-liberal attacks on the working class that Sinn Fein are implementing now. They are a right-wing party just like the unionists, Alliance and SDLP. It only further demonstrates the complete failure of the political entity that is Northern Ireland. Sectarian violence has existed since the inception of the Northern Ireland state and the IRA is only a symptom of that, not a cause.


yeaaah ok and what was the massacre at kingsmill then. i think ordering 11 men, on their way home from work, off of a bus and shooting the protestants and letting the single catholic worker leave unharmed has a slight religious vibe to it.

I agree that this action was completely indefensible. What isn't usually told with this account was that when the bus was stopped and the gunmen asked "who's the catholic?", several of his work mates identified him thinking that the gunmen were loyalists.


also im not sure why a 'political' massacre is somehow preferable to a 'religious' one. killing people over nationalism is hardly something you should be trying excuse, but i guess for a lot of republicans, people from a unionist/protestant background are more or less non-entities.

Of course a political massacre isn't preferable to a religious one. However, we're constantly told by people that the war in north of Ireland from 1969-98 was a "religious war", when in reality most people couldn't care less whether you prayed to Yahweh or Allah.

Oh, and the founders of Irish Republicanism were protestants. ;)

[TheEmancipator]

The IRA from 1919 to 1921 didn't fight for the independence of what is now the Republic of Ireland. They fought for the independence of the entire 32-county island of Ireland. I was born in "Northern Ireland". Am I not entitled to "full and legitimate" independence from British rule?

Yes, you are, under the Good Friday agreement. Northern Irishmen can choose to have an Irish passport.




Another lie which has been peddled by the mainstream British establishment so much over the years that it's just accepted as fact. I agree the IRA committed some terrible atrocities against ordinary protestant civilians, but they were political, not religious. They weren't running around with rosary beads around their neck and shouting about the pope while they were on operations.

OK, I agree with you that we shouldn't look at this from a Protestant vs Catholic perspective but the main point of IRA attacks were to attract attention. They weren't going to do that by blowing up their own.



While there were always people who disagreed with the IRA, the vast majority of people in our areas supported the IRA. They are still called republican areas now and they were even more republican during the war. The fact is, the IRA would not have been able to sustain a 30-year campaign if it did not have a massive support network.

By and large due to their own propaganda and intimidation. Also, when you have a choice between the RUC and the IRA, I know which.


100,000 people lined the Falls road for Bobby Sands funeral. That gives you an idea of the support they had.

Bobby Sands' funeral was not an IRA march, it was an Irish Republican march to honour the death of someone who stood up for basic human decency and respect for the Irish population living in occupied territory.

Please do not make out that the Provvies were in any way a fully representative body of Irish Republicanism. There are many other organisation more secular, more revolutionary, and more honest certainly than the Provisional IRA.




What progress? Of course it's great that we have peace, and the majority of people never want to go back, but a lot of things haven't really changed at all. Internment without trial still exists, albeit on a much more selective scale, and sectarian attitudes are entrenched as ever, as demonstrated by the recent flag and Twelfth of July protests.

I don't see what solution we can offer to the Northern Irish people. There will always be a divide, but if it becomes a rivalry instead of a gang war, then as far as I'm concerned that's progress.

The Orange Order are just a bunch of old men in Rangers' tops singing the Billy Boys song. They're nothing compared to the Wombles who dressed up during the Troubles in order to make Nazi salutes and attack anybody who looked Republican.



The "organisation" was the people, the IRA drew its membership from ordinary working-class communities who had seen brutal injustices committed against them and the generations before them. While I agree that certain individuals in the leadership were corrupt and self-serving (as we can see now with Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams), the ordinary volunteers who made up the IRA were anything but self promoting and in many cases held socialist beliefs. They were risking their freedom and their lives to try and rid their country of the scourge of imperialism which has blighted it for centuries.

I don't criticise the grass-roots campaigners and paramilitaries one moment. They felt a need to defend their community. Its the higher echelons that have always led me to believe that the IRA is not for a second socialist.



I think that perhaps you don't understand what left communism is. This should be taken with a salt mine. ;)1

Well they condemned authoritarian Bolshevism and called for councils etc like you did. Their tendency was a little weird.

[Redmau5]

Yes, you are, under the Good Friday agreement. Northern Irishmen can choose to have an Irish passport.

Even before the Good Friday Agreement I was Irish. I do need any document to tell me what I am in the country I was born in.


OK, I agree with you that we shouldn't look at this from a Protestant vs Catholic perspective but the main point of IRA attacks were to attract attention. They weren't going to do that by blowing up their own.


The main point of their attacks was to try and liberate their country from British occupation, which they viewed as the main cause of sectarian strife in Ireland.


By and large due to their own propaganda and intimidation. Also, when you have a choice between the RUC and the IRA, I know which.

People still turn out in huge numbers for IRA commemorations and republican events. I guess they're still being intimidated despite the PIRA no longer existing. :rolleyes:


Bobby Sands' funeral was not an IRA march, it was an Irish Republican march to honour the death of someone who stood up for basic human decency and respect for the Irish population living in occupied territory.

Please do not make out that the Provvies were in any way a fully representative body of Irish Republicanism. There are many other organisation more secular, more revolutionary, and more honest certainly than the Provisional IRA.

Bobby Sands' funeral was an IRA march, he was an IRA member and was given an IRA military funeral. You can dress it up whatever way you like, but Bobby Sands was a proud IRA member and he was willing to die for his beliefs.


I don't see what solution we can offer to the Northern Irish people. There will always be a divide, but if it becomes a rivalry instead of a gang war, then as far as I'm concerned that's progress.

There is no such thing as "Northern Irish" people. We are all Irish. And most of us are workers. :)

[Dr Doom]

The main point of their attacks was to try and liberate their country from British occupation, which they viewed as the main cause of sectarian strife in Ireland.


redmau5, do you believe the removal of the british state from northern ireland and the incorporation of NI into a united ireland would result in the end of sectarian conflict here ?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've never really understood the Provisional IRA's logic regarding "British Imperialism" in Northern Ireland. Perhaps in 1920 the idea of the UK holding unto Northern Ireland for imperialist gain made sense, as Northern Ireland had a high concentration of heavy industry compared to the rest of Ireland. But by the 70's and 80's, between the costs of babysitting the insurgency in Northern Ireland, and pouring money into the North's ailing economy, it doesn't seem to me like the UK really got much out of having Northern Ireland in the union. The Provisional logic seemed to me to assert that the UK somehow was operating in it's own interests by keeping NI in it's sphere of influence, like the part of their strategy regarding targeting UK investments in NI.

From what I know of the conflict, I don't think there are easy answers to the hostility across sectarian lines. The mistrust is too deep and definitely wouldn't be solved by one singular Irish republic or whatever. There've been a few times when unionists and nationalists have come together, but it's never seemed to last. I also think that the carefully-constructed narratives and justifications for both the republican and loyalist sides are often self-serving and dishonest. But I don't have any special knowledge or attachment to this subject, it just interests me and I've read a few books on it/watched dumb Hollywood movies.

[boiler]

What are your opinions on the IRA, they call themselves Socialists and they oppose occupation (obviously), how should we feel about them? They are recognised as a terrorist group but so are the Naxalites and many of us support them...
I am very against then bombing shops and religious groups because it makes them look like wackos but I agree with Irish republicanism and British republicanism.

The IRA had a campaign of destroying and attacking economic targets to destroy the economy. The IRA near enough always gave warnings when they were bombing economic targets. And the IRA never purposely bombed religious groups.

I support the IRA and I think the IRA should be supported by all.

:marx: :star2: :che: :hammersickle: :castro:

[boiler]

Perhaps if they hadn't bombed innocent people, they would get my support. They are nothing but nationalist terrorists. Don't be fooled.

The IRA didnt purposely bomb innocent. Innocent people were killed by IRA bombs. But way more innocent people were killed Loyalists and the British military and police.

[Tifosi]

Yo, Yet_Anothar_boring_Marxis, the word your looking for is British not English. English this, English that. Scotland and Wales fucked the world over to. Don't let those Scots and Welsh that profited off empire off the hook.

Also the PIRA's campaign begun a few years before Bloody Sunday.

Anyway, Loyalists love waving Saltires more than English flags. They have a 'loving connection' with the Scottish lowlands. Only problem is their imagination runs away with them.

[human strike]

There were plenty of revolutionaries in the IRA.

You probably couldn't tell that from your armchair though.

Ok, so what in the content of anything the IRA ever did - both the War of Independence, civil war IRA and the Provisional IRA of the troubles - was at all revolutionary from a communist perspective?

[Coggeh]

Speaking from the Troubles onwards. The IRA (in its many strands) were not a revolutionary organisation. However to paint them as evil hell bent on destruction individuals is ignoring the material conditions that existed in Northern Irish society. The IRA were a product of British Imperialism, its membership yes did exist before bloody Sunday but grew exponentially afterwards with the events such as Bobby sands and the other hunger strikers deaths etc. No doubt they're were revolutionaries and socialist revolutionaries involved with the OIRA and the INLA etc but they're programme rather than helping a socialist cause only played into the hands of the unionist (at the time) bourgoise.

The IRA and Republican ( nationalist is a false word when referring to the north i feel) movements were born out of reaction to both foreign and domestic oppression, they were the mobilising movement of working class catholic areas at the time. I disagree with them completely however i feel its necessary to paint a picture of the times. There was no revolutionary left organisation providing a real alternative, many organisations were just political arms of these organisations Workers Party (OIRA) IRSP(INLA) and the SWP supported the PIRA in many ways, they called for a vote for SINN Fein up until 98'.

Militant tried to provide an alternative, promoting self defense in catholic areas, teaching residents to form community defense councils. even distributing leaflets to residents on how to make petrol bombs to defend against Loyalist and RUC mobs. But what was needed was a socialist programme to unite the masses for example the protest for One Man One Vote that was the protest happening during bloody Sunday, also affected Protestant workers, they were also disenfranchised, a mass revolutionary organisation could have cut across the divide but the so called left such as the WP, SWP and the IRSP were too indulged with skewed view of the national question than deal with the issues facing the working class at hand and how to establish a real workers society to unite and provide a socialist alternative to the republican/unionist divide.

[Geiseric]

The IRA isn't really a homogenous organization. I feel it has those who advocate defensive as well as malicious violence like any armed force, the manchester bombing for example was a terrible idea along with most of the bombings which killed normal working class people regardless of nationality. But a real socialist revolutionary republic of Ireland would necessitate all of the counties which may of been overlooked by the state during the forming of the southern republic, something supported by many opportunistic southern landowners.

[Devrim]

Sectarian violence has existed since the inception of the Northern Ireland state and the IRA is only a symptom of that, not a cause.

Certainly the IRA was not the cause of sectarianism in Northern Ireland. I don't think that it was part of a solution to the problem either.


I agree that this action was completely indefensible. What isn't usually told with this account was that when the bus was stopped and the gunmen asked "who's the catholic?", several of his work mates identified him thinking that the gunmen were loyalists.

I think there is a huge difference between people planning and carrying out an attacking, and a people when face to face with a man with a gun pointing out 'the catholic' whether through fear or even a desire to assist what they presumed to be a unionist gunman.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think that perhaps you don't understand what left communism is. This should be taken with a salt mine.Well they condemned authoritarian Bolshevism and called for councils etc like you did. Their tendency was a little weird.

I don't think that any Republican organisation took this position. That doesn't mean that there were not very confused people in them that had similar ideas.

The dividing line between these organisations and left communism though is that left communism rejects the idea that national liberation struggles have anything to offer the working class.

Devrim

[Devrim]

There is no such thing as "Northern Irish" people. We are all Irish. And most of us are workers. :)

Being 'Irish' is as much an artificial construct as being 'Northern Irish'. Most of the population of the overwhelming majority of nations are workers.

Devrim

[human strike]

The IRA isn't really a homogenous organization. I feel it has those who advocate defensive as well as malicious violence like any armed force

Good cop, bad cop?

[Redmau5]

redmau5, do you believe the removal of the british state from northern ireland and the incorporation of NI into a united ireland would result in the end of sectarian conflict here ?

I don't know if it would end sectarian conflict. What I do know is that the state of Northern Ireland is built on a foundation of sectarianism. There has been omnipresent sectarianism and varying levels of violence since the state was founded in 1922.

I don't want any united Ireland just for the sake of it. I was a socialist republic just as I want a socialist republic for Britain and the rest of the globe. But I'm convinced that as long we continue to distinguish between so-called "Northern Irish" people and the rest of the Irish people we are just facilitating what James Connolly called a "carnival of reaction", with little prospect of awakening any revolutionary consciousness in the unionist people in the north of Ireland.

[Redmau5]

Being 'Irish' is as much an artificial construct as being 'Northern Irish'. Most of the population of the overwhelming majority of nations are workers.

Devrim

While I'm largely in agreement about nationality being a construct, the Northern Irish are lagging somewhat behind in terms of language, music, literature, mythology etc. ;)

[Redmau5]

Ok, so what in the content of anything the IRA ever did - both the War of Independence, civil war IRA and the Provisional IRA of the troubles - was at all revolutionary from a communist perspective?

The IRA from 1919 on wards was never a communist organisation. It did how ever have a great deal of socialist revolutionaries within its ranks who recognised that if they were ever to establish a socialist republic in Ireland they would have to remove the malign British influence in the country. They viewed removing the British occupation as only the means to an end, not the ultimate end in itself.

You can of course disagree with that analysis but I have met many former PIRA volunteers over the years who are as socialist now as when they first joined. I think it goes without saying that many are disillusioned with the state of affairs in Ireland right now.

[Coggeh]

I think there is a huge difference between people planning and carrying out an attacking, and a people when face to face with a man with a gun pointing out 'the catholic' whether through fear or even a desire to assist what they presumed to be a unionist gunman.

Devrim
Thats not what happened. The post your replying to is false but i agree with your point (sorry I would quote the post but can't find it (o_O) ).

What happened was a catholic worker getting the bus to work with 9 prodestant workers were stopped and they said all the catholics to one side all the prodestants to the other, they looked like UVF and had East Belfast accents, so the prodestant workers tried to tell the catholic to stay with them, he didn't and said he was the catholic and they shot the other workers. Turned out to be PIRA men.

[Devrim]

Thats not what happened. The post your replying to is false but i agree with your point (sorry I would quote the post but can't find it (o_O) ).

What happened was a catholic worker getting the bus to work with 9 prodestant workers were stopped and they said all the catholics to one side all the prodestants to the other, they looked like UVF and had East Belfast accents, so the prodestant workers tried to tell the catholic to stay with them, he didn't and said he was the catholic and they shot the other workers. Turned out to be PIRA men.

I have heard various different versions of this tale, the version you present is more common though generally it is that the speaker had an English accent. I have also heard that they pointed him out though.

I think that we are agreed though that however the other workers behaved before they were shot, it doesn't justify planning and carrying out sectarian murders.

Devrim

[TheEmancipator]

I don't think that any Republican organisation took this position. That doesn't mean that there were not very confused people in them that had similar ideas.

The dividing line between these organisations and left communism though is that left communism rejects the idea that national liberation struggles have anything to offer the working class.

Devrim

ok, I understand now, thank you for clearing that up, I apologise for tarnishing your tendency which I respect greatly, its just they reminded me of left communists, and i meant that in a positive way:)

Could i ask why left communists who tend to give great importance to internationalism, reject the notion of national liberation as a stepping stone towards worker emancipation? Is this their key difference with, say, Trotskyists, who seem to back NL movements?

[blake 3:17]

I'm pro-Republican for what that's worth. I'm more interested in the Irish civil rights movement and Sinn Fein than any militarized strategy, though it was one of necessity.

[D-A-C]

While I'm largely in agreement about nationality being a construct, the Northern Irish are lagging somewhat behind in terms of language, music, literature, mythology etc. ;)

Really?

Speaking as someone who lives in Northern Ireland, I thought people from Ulster (basically the province considered Northern Ireland for those who don't know Irish geography)were universally recognized as some of the most cullturally important people in the whole of Ireland and have made significant contributions to music, art, literature and many other fields.

The fact is, that Ulster and Northern Ireland have enough of a seperate history from the rest of the country to warrant a seperate cultural identity.

I've said on both online and offline ... I haven't a clue about people down south in the Republic of Ireland. I don't know their likes/dislikes, what politically motivates them, were they stand on certain issues etc and I doubt people in the Republican of Ireland know much about the North or honestly care for that matter. The Republic has its own history, especially since it has existed independently of the north of the country for approaching almost 100 years now, and its identity no longer coincides with ours.

Without getting into a 'slagging match', I'd go so far as to say Ulster's culture is richer than the rest of Ireland's due to the fact that for much of its history the North has been a richer more industrialised province. In fact, part of the reason for the partition of the country, was supposedly that the Protestants believed that the rest of the country would lag behind in poverty as long as the industrialised North remained in their hands given the ship yards, textiles and other important sources of capital in Ulster.

Also, up until the 'Celtic Tiger' I would hazard a guess that Ulster was the most prosperous of the 4 provinces in Ireland, unless perhaps Dublin heavily weighted in Leinsters favour, but I doubt it. Again in fact, I'm 99.9% certain that up until the Celtic Tiger, brought about by the massive influx of EU money, that the South could almost have been considered backwards compared to the North.

In fact, as someone living in the North of Ireland, I can tell you that a common source of humour at the time, was how people from the South of Ireland thought they were suddenly 'bigshots' thanks to the momentary boom in their economy. Although of course, they aren't exactly floating on good times economically now are they though?

Its also a very common perception that people from Dublin can't stand to laugh at themselves, which for me at least, shows a certain amount of cultural barrenness, whereas we in the North can always have a good laugh at ourselves because we are more culturally sophisticated.

Actually, taking a moment to really think about your statement, I would go so far as to emphatically restate my belief that the North of Ireland is culturally richer than the rest of the Ireland, and if you'd ever like to come up North you'd see that. We are well educated, politically sharp and often ahead of cultural trends. We may have our problems, but I am proud to be from the North of Ireland and take exception to the idea we somehow 'lag behind' any other part of the country. I would go so far as to say we are ahead of the South rather than somehow lagging behind it. Of the two places, I certainly know where I am happier to be living.



As for the OP's question. Its rather easy to condemn the IRA now that Catholics have achieved alot of the rights that were denied to them for centuries.

Sectarianism still exists in the North or Ireland, but it is no longer allowed to exist out in the open. For example if my University discriminated against me because of my religious background I could take them to court so fast it wouldn't be worth their while to even bother with it. Sure there are conflicts and tension points between Catholics and Protestants, and there are still biases and prejudices, but there are now legitimate legal channels to address those problems aswell.

The fact is the IRA was instrumental in protecting the Catholic community from Protestant opression and terror. Catholics were mistreated and abused for centuries and it was in part thanks to the IRA that those injustices were overturned.

Like I said, it would be easy for me to criticize, but without them its a possibility I wouldn't enjoy the freedoms I have today.

However, thanks to enjoying the freedoms I have, I believe that the Northern Irish political landscape could do with a truly socialist party that could serve as a third way between the major secterian parties that represent the Catholic and Protestant communities. Hopefully in the next few years such a Party will come into existence, and when it does, it will have my support.

But I'm not willing to historically condemn the IRA. Mistakes may have been made, but unlike the armchair know-it-alls who attempt to slander Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che and others in the same way 'after the fact', I can appreciate how difficult it is to make important practical decisions whilst being involved in major events and so will not condemn them wholesale.

[Karlorax]

The struggle for national liberation against imperialism is a good one.

What do you think of the idea that social conditions have changed a lot in Ireland, making such movements difficult to sustain?


This analysis questions the possibility of Irish revolution: http://llco.org/leading-light-communist-stand-in-line-on-ireland/

__________________

Currently reading, dare to join me? I am no Leading Light Communist, but I am studying their work for my MA thesis

Leading Light on Conspiracy Theory is Intelligent Design (http://llco.org/leading-light-on-conspiracy-theory-is-intelligent-design/)
Was Lin Biao guilty plotting a coup? Part 1 of 2 (draft) (http://llco.org/draft-was-lin-biao-guilty-plotting-a-coup-part-1-of-2/)
Revisiting Value and Exploitation (http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/)
What about the Gulag? Mao’s errors? Stalin’s? (http://llco.org/revolutionary-history-initial-summations/)

[Comrade Chernov]

It all depends on if the IRA are working for their own best interest, or the best interest of the people of Northern Ireland. If the Northern Irish want to join Ireland, or be their own country, then the IRA should be negotiated with. If the Northern Irish want to remain part of Britain, then the IRA are terrorists.

[Niall]

Really?

Speaking as someone who lives in Northern Ireland, I thought people from Ulster (basically the province considered Northern Ireland for those who don't know Irish geography)were universally recognized as some of the most cullturally important people in the whole of Ireland and have made significant contributions to music, art, literature and many other fields.


Ulster is 9 counties the North has 6 counties. There is even different flags so Ulster is not the province considered Northern Ireland.

Anyway, while I wold never deny anyone their right to opinion I find it amazing that people here can label IRA volunteers as A, B or C despite most having never met a volunteer past or present

[Os Cangaceiros]

^there's a lot of analysis on this site based on people's interpretations of people/events that they personally didn't have first-hand knowledge of.

[Niall]

^ there is a difference between analysis and outright labelling people tho. At least I think there is anyway

[CommieMaybe]

Well, in my opinion, the IRA's cause was a just one. But the bombing campaign, unfortunately, gave them a lot of bad press. I am a firm supporter of Irish Republicanism but I can't really abide by acts of terrorism. :che: :star3: :hammersickle:

[RedCeltic]

I support Irish Republicanism in so far as it being anti-imperialism and in support of self determination for the Irish people. I can understand why, bombing has been used as a tactic of the IRA though I do not support such acts. While there are some admireable beliefs and policies of the IRA there are also some downright nasty aspects of the organizations that identify with the IRA label. (I'm lumping all IRA, RIRA, PIRA and so forth together here.) I also feel that Irish Americans such as myself have a tendency to throw their support behind the IRA without really having knowledge about the situation, the organization, or really having a right to have any say in the struggle. At best, we should claim to have sympathy for the Irish Republican cause and self determination for the Irish people.

I reject the notion that any nationalism is thereby in nature counter revolutionary. As James Connolly had said, "The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland and the cause of Ireland is the cause of Labour." That quote's on his statue in Dublin which sits by the Custom house.

To me, what Connolly means by those words is that any movement for self determination that is not married with an anti-capitalist movement is only fighting half a battle. For what use is it to throw out English rule without throwing out English capital? That isn't to say that Irish Capital is superior to English capital.

I think most Irish Republicans still keep Connolly's ideals and those of the other heroes of 1916 at the core of their beliefs, even if it has been hijacked and misunderstood over here in the states.

[Vireya]

The IRA is good, a great example of a people struggling for independence.