The Irish free state.

[BlackFlag]

Now, being from Ireland this is a question I'd like to ask.
Ireland was overruled by Britian, much to the anger of 26 counties of Ireland. During the great famine, the British did not give charity, they forced already sick Irish to work (Most of which couldn't) for food. Around one million or so died, and 1 - 1.5 million emigrated.
After the 1800 act of Union, the Irish saught for home rule once again, through peaceful measures. Home rule was stopped, temporarily by the war. After the war Irish men were now willing to use violence to attain it's own state.
The 1916 Easter Rising was the start, which failed and eight men were killed by a firing squad.
Teenagers who were involved were placed in the same 'prisons' as men who had fought seriously, which led to the older men teaching the teenagers on how to use guns and so on.
Eventually at the Anglo-Irish treaty Michael Collins managed to make the South of Ireland it's own country, with Britian taking hold of northern Ireland.
Were the Irish right to fight for their own state?
Some things to consider before answering:
After the IRA ( Who were not thugs back then) killed 11 intelligence officers who had infiltrated their ranks, and two "black and tans", a British Army tank rolled into Croke Park Stadium (GAA stadium) and murdered fourteen civilians including a footballer.
The black and tans auxiliary forces ( employed by the British ) showed superior attitudes to the Irish, and burned down the main area of Cork City.
Then again, the Anglo-Irish treaty also led to a civil war in Ireland, over some people wishing that the Northern part of Ireland be removed from Britian, the IRA also led to the foundation of the more known-IRA later on ( The belfast troubles).
So, what do you think?

[Andropov]

Jesus wept...

[BOZG]

Jesus wept...

Verbal warning: One liners which contribute nothing to the discussion will not be tolerated. If you have nothing to add, stay quiet. Post trashed.

[Remus Bleys]

Why is being oppressed by the Bourgeoisie of Ireland better than being oppressed by the Bourgeoisie of England?
Why not focus on something different for Ireland?

[Os Cangaceiros]

From a strategic standpoint, Collins probably had a strong argument in his favor. The war between the IRA and the forces of the UK had basically fought to a stalemate. Neither side was going to eliminate the other in the short term, so establishing the "Irish Free State" as a stepping stone for greater and greater independence from the UK was a sound decision, IMO, and IIRC most of the population of Ireland supported the treaty.

There was nothing anti-capitalist about it, though. The amount of "Connolly-ites" in the IRA during the 20's was very small, in fact that Irish Nationalists who went to fight for Franco during the Spanish Civil War probably are a better representation of the political values of the very early IRA. And that's without even going into "national liberation" and anti-capitalism conceptually-speaking.

[Geiseric]

Why is being oppressed by the Bourgeoisie of Ireland better than being oppressed by the Bourgeoisie of England?
Why not focus on something different for Ireland?

Marx supported Irish Nationalism because it is a necessary thing to snap english workers out of their chauvanist attitudes. It's kind of like how socialists need to support black and mexican nationalism in the United States, it is necessary for the most oppressed layers to liberate themselves before the majority white population will realize that they're not in the same boat as the bourgeois. The end of capitalism in England was dependent on the liberation of not only the Irish but all of the working class's in the Empire. Of course now capitalism is in a monopoly stage which was different than in the 1800s.

[Prometeo liberado]

The war between the IRA and the forces of the UK had basically fought to a stalemate.
A canard. A fallacy. Defeatist and totally false. One side will always eventually win. Just depends on the price one is willing to pay to own ones self.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One side will always eventually win. Just depends on the price one is willing to pay to own ones self.

and in the very next sentence he says:


Neither side was going to eliminate the other in the short term

:rolleyes:

At the time of the treaty, the conflict was indeed in stalemate.

[Prometeo liberado]

and in the very next sentence he says:



:rolleyes:

At the time of the treaty, the conflict was indeed in stalemate.

I think it was Tim Pat Coogan that said "The British never think terms of days, weeks, months or years. They think in terms Centuries and eras". The Irish may have not.

[Remus Bleys]

Of course now capitalism is in a monopoly stage which was different than in the 1800s.

So why support it now?

[Sasha]

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.

and thats even besides the fact that there can no such thing as "socialism in one republic", all nationalism is a dead end, our struggle should always be anti-national and worldwide but nationalism without even challenging capital is even more so a waste of energy and lives.

[Remus Bleys]

and thats even besides the fact that there can no such thing as "socialism in one republic", all nationalism is a dead end, our struggle should always be anti-national and worldwide but nationalism without even challenging capital is even more so a waste of energy and lives.

Connolly isn't advocating for "socialism in One Country." Notice how he only mentions the "English" landlord, capitalist, and financiers.
Connolly is a populist, who would much rather be exploited by the Irish Bourgeoisie than the English ones.

[Sasha]

to be fair i think that connolly didnt try to make a difference between english capital and irish capital, he said that capital was the real enemy and that capital was the most evil of the many things the English imposed on the irish.
considering that the english "owned" ireland since feudal times he was of course kind of correct in that. i would say he correctly identified the problem and the medicine, he was just way off in the way the medicine should be administrated.

[Invader Zim]

So, what do you think?

Think about what? You haven't made an argument. All you've done is regurgitate a pub rant about the history of Ireland since the 1840s.

[BlackFlag]

I haven't made an argument because I have no idea what to think about it, and I'm still learning about leftist ideologies.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Were the Irish right to fight for their own state?

At this point, British colonialism had entered a downturn since the end of the First World War. The revival of European nationalism from 1918-1922 was in full swing. Thus, IRA leaders Michael Collins and Sinn Fein saw it fit to begin a serious struggle for Irish independence. After the victory of the pro-independence forces in 1921, the famous Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed guaranteeing the independence of the entire island. Inevitably, anti-Treaty forces led by Eamon de Valera wanted a more complete independence of Ireland as a republic as opposed to a Commonwealth nation. Pro-Treaty forces led by Michael Collins entered a bitter dispute that would split the Irish nationalist camp with the desire or non-desire to accept the British sponsored treaty. By 1922, an independent Irish "Free State" was established as a nation of Commonwealth status while Northern Ireland remained with the United Kingdom per the Anglo-Irish treaty following independence. In addition, the Civil War had destroyed any chances of a completely united Ireland.

So what do you think?

The Irish nationalist struggle was admirable. The 1916 Easter Rising was a legendary uprising that doesn't take enough credit for demonstrating the enormous influence revolutionary socialism had on the Irish nationalists, especially Sinn Fein. The Irish Civil War was a war exploited by the British to ensure a non-unified Ireland. The tensions between Unionists and Republicans created by this conflict would boil over into conflict once again almost 50 years later during the beginnings of the Troubles.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Were the Irish right to fight for their own state?

At this point, British colonialism had entered a downturn since the end of the First World War. The revival of European nationalism from 1918-1922 was in full swing. Thus, IRA leaders Michael Collins and Sinn Fein saw it fit to begin a serious struggle for Irish independence. After the victory of the pro-independence forces in 1921, the famous Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed guaranteeing the independence of the entire island. Inevitably, anti-Treaty forces led by Eamon de Valera wanted a more complete independence of Ireland as a republic as opposed to a Commonwealth nation. Pro-Treaty forces led by Michael Collins entered a bitter dispute that would split the Irish nationalist camp with the desire or non-desire to accept the British sponsored treaty. By 1922, an independent Irish "Free State" was established as a nation of Commonwealth status while Northern Ireland remained with the United Kingdom per the Anglo-Irish treaty following independence. In addition, the Civil War had destroyed any chances of a completely united Ireland.

So what do you think?

The Irish nationalist struggle was admirable. The 1916 Easter Rising was a legendary uprising that doesn't take enough credit for demonstrating the enormous influence revolutionary socialism had on the Irish nationalists, especially Sinn Fein. The Irish Civil War was a war exploited by the British to ensure a non-unified Ireland. The tensions between Unionists and Republicans created by this conflict would boil over into conflict once again almost 50 years later during the beginnings of the Troubles.
Where ther f*ck are you getting this nonsense from?

It looks like a copy and paste from a dodgy wikipedia page.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Where ther f*ck are you getting this nonsense from?

It looks like a copy and paste from a dodgy wikipedia page.

I apologize, it was late and I got tired and lazy. I'll post a more appropriate response to the OP here:

The Irish were right to fight for independence from an imperial Britain. However, this same nationalism harbored divisions among the Irish republicans. Without these divisions, Ireland would have been unified and arguably more socialist.

What I think about the events following up to Irish independence?

Tragic. Irish workers ended up fighting each other in the 1921-1922 Civil War over a British imposed treaty. In the end, northern Ireland was seized by reactionary Loyalists while the rest of the Irish homeland was retained under the Sinn Fein republican government. Neither side was arguably better for the Irish workers.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The Irish were right to fight for independence from an imperial Britain. However, this same nationalism harbored divisions among the Irish republicans. Without these divisions, Ireland would have been unified and arguably more socialist.
No it wouldn't - nationalist movements are - by their very nature - cross class alliances that inevitably break down when competing classes (or sections of classes) begin vying for their own objectives. Irish nationalism was always under the control of right-wing for-capitalist elements. Even if it didn't split (which was never a possibility) it would not have been any more 'socialist' than it was.


What I think about the events following up to Irish independence?

Tragic. Irish workers ended up fighting each other in the 1921-1922 Civil War over a British imposed treaty. In the end, northern Ireland was seized by reactionary Loyalists while the rest of the Irish homeland was retained under the Sinn Fein republican government. Neither side was arguably better for the Irish workers.
This is not accurate either -

Few workers were actuallly involved in the fighting during the civil war - on the anti-Treaty side it was mostly rural small farming elements with some agricultural labourers and on the pro-Treaty side it comprised a lot of ex-WW1 soldiers (anti-Treaty probably had less than 1,000 combatants while the Free State army was eventually built up to over 40,000).

A strike wave engulfed Ireland before and during the civil war and both sides in the civil war engaged in the suppression of strike action.

The Free State was not governed by a SF republican government - it was a section of the nationalist movement that was a right-wing, ultra reactionary, ultra catholic regime that had elements of fascism within it (the Special Infantry Corps).

Now - just a comment - your knowledge of the history of this period appears to be scant at best. I would suggest that you 1. read a couple of books about the period and/or 2. ask questions about stuff rather than making inaccurate posts that lack any understanding of the period (and the same advice would go for Black Flag).

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Now - just a comment - your knowledge of the history of this period appears to be scant at best. I would suggest that you 1. read a couple of books about the period and/or 2. ask questions about stuff rather than making inaccurate posts that lack any understanding of the period (and the same advice would go for Black Flag).

Thanks for the wake-up call. I'll keep that in mind for future posts.