Let's list little known leftist revolutions!

[xxxxxx666666]

Hi all,

Let's get a list of little known leftist revolutions, here's a few I know, please add to these:

German Revolution of 1918–19 by the German communist party

Ukrainian Revolution of 1918 to 1922

Spanish revolution in 1936 where an anarchist society existed briefly

The Russian revolution in 1917 which, probaby everyone knows but I decided to add anyway just in case someone doesn't ;)

[Remus Bleys]

these are all failed revolutions and they were the closest to happen
and now i am sad.

[consuming negativity]

Does Burkina Faso/Thomas Sankara count as a leftist 'revolution'?

I wouldn't really consider any of the ones you listed "lesser known". :unsure:

[Hrafn]

The Finnish Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War).

[xxxxxx666666]

these are all failed revolutions and they were the closest to happen
and now i am sad.

Yes, they make me sad too :crying:

But let's look at the all those past revolutions so we may learn from their mistakes so we can succeed in the future!! ;)

[Queen Mab]

How many explicitly socialist proletarian revolutions have there ever been?

Paris Commune....Bolshevik Revolution....German Revolution...Hungarian Revolution....Spanish Revolution....errr, man this is depressing.

[Illegalitarian]

Does Burkina Faso/Thomas Sankara count as a leftist 'revolution'?


Eh, as much as I like Sankara and what he did I'd say what happened in Burkina Faso was much more of a Deformed Worker's State situation

[xxxxxx666666]

I wouldn't really consider any of the ones you listed "lesser known". :unsure:

Well, for some people, like me after I first read about them;), they were.:)

Ok, because "lesser known" is relative, please just list all the leftist revolutions you know of, whether they are well known or not, for the sake of completeness. :grin:

Here's two revolutions that Che Guevara helped in after the Cuban Revolution (which [the Cuban revolution, I mean] is a leftist revolution in its own rights, at least, I think so.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution

Congo Crisis (1960–1966)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis

Ñancahuazú Guerrilla or Ejército de Liberación Nacional de Bolivia (ELN) from 1966 to 1967.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%91ancahuaz%C3%BA_Guerrilla


I wonder if Muammar Gaddafi's Coup d'etat of 1969 in Libya count? What's your opinions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

And maybe I'll add the India Communist Party as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

1974 Carnation Revolution (although it did not lead to the creation of a workers' republic, the revolution did open the way for the most left-wing government in Western Europe at the time filled with Communists and Socialists)

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

As an addendum to my last post:

1916 Easter Rising

1918-1922 Various left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War

1919 Hungarian Revolution

1921-1924 Outer Mongolia Revolution which led to establishment of the Mongolian socialist state

1926-1927 PKI rebellion against Dutch rule in Indonesia

1927 KMT uprising led by Zhou Enlai and He Long lead to establishment of the People's Liberation Army after the KMT-Communist alliance is ended by Chiang Kai-Shek

1927-1933 Augusto Cesar Sandino's uprising against the American occupation of Nicaragua

1930-1931 Nghe-Tinh revolt in French Indochina briefly led to the creation of a Soviet that was swiftly crushed by the French colonial forces

1932 Salvadorean uprising led by Farabundo Marti

1934 Asturias and Catalonia rebellions

1941-1945 Yugoslav Liberation War

1943-1945 Italian communist-led resistance against the Italian Social Republic

1944-1949 Greek Civil War

1946-1951 Telengana Rebellion led by communist peasants in Hyderabad, India

1954-1962 FLN resistance against French colonial rule (during a time when the FLN was genuinely socialist and revolutionary before the bourgeois counterrevolution of Houari Boumedienne in 1965)

1962-1974 Guinea-Bissau War of Independence waged by the PAIGC led by Amilcar Cabral

1962-1975 Dhofar Rebellion in Oman

1964 Simba Rebellion in the Congo

1964 Zanzibar Revolution

1964-1979 Rhodesian Bush War waged by the ZANU and ZIPRA against the white nationalist government of Ian Smith

1964-1975 Mozambican War of Independence

1965 March Intifada in Bahrain against British colonial rule

1968 Revolution in the Republic of the Congo leads to the establishment of the People's Republic of the Congo

1972 Revolution in Madagascar leads to establishment of a North Korean-style Communist military junta

1994 Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas

2006 Revolution in Nepal leads to the fall of the monarchy and the institution of a modern democracy (The most successful Communist revolution in the post-Cold War era)

[Jolly Red Giant]

1916 Easter Rising
A nationalist - not a left wing - uprising

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I believe there was also a Shanghai Commune in 1927, put down rather brutally by Chiang Kei-Shek. It was completely grassroots, after the workers overthrew the local warlord.

Sadly, like the Paris Commune it only lasted a short while.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

A nationalist - not a left wing - uprising

James Connolly, famous Irish revolutionary socialist, was executed by the British after he was found as the leader of the failed rebellion. I have no doubt that if the Easter Rising succeeded that we would see a much more socialist-republican Ireland a la the Spanish Republic (1931-1939).

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

A nationalist - not a left wing - uprising

James Connolly was a revolutionary socialist and he was executed by the British for leading the failed rebellion. I know there were little of his kind in the big picture but he did bring revolutionary values into the Irish republican movement (even if they were ultimately ephemeral).

[Venas Abiertas]

The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen

The revolution began as a nationalist revolt against their British colonial masters and became socialist four years later when Marxists gained control of one of the national groups and declared the country to be socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Democratic_Republic_of_Yemen

[Tim Cornelis]

Spanish, German, and Russian revolution were the major revolutions and most well-known. I don't think they deserve to be named in this list.

The 1903 Strandzha Commune on the other hand.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madiun_Affair

[Leftsolidarity]

Ethiopia is a fairly unknown one

[Jolly Red Giant]

James Connolly, famous Irish revolutionary socialist, was executed by the British after he was found as the leader of the failed rebellion. I have no doubt that if the Easter Rising succeeded that we would see a much more socialist-republican Ireland a la the Spanish Republic (1931-1939).
Just because Connolly participated in the Easter Rising does not make a left-wing Uprising. The Rising was planned, organised and carried out by the Irish Republican Brotherhood - a right-wing nationalist organisation. Connolly made a political error in judgement in participating in the Rising. Furthermore, he compounded the error by failing to have the Irish Citizens Army participate in the Rising under its own banner. Connolly did not actually have unanimous support within the ICA or the SPI for participating - there was a major debate within both organisations and the ITGWU over Connolly's decision to participate in the Rising and fly the tricolour over Liberty Hall - and his supporters only agreed to allow him to do it after he blackmailed them into it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The one in my pants back in 2012. It was a riot.

[Leftsolidarity]

The one in my pants back in 2012. It was a riot.

Verbal Warning for off-topic oneliner.

Come on really? This is history not chit-chat.

[La Guaneña]

1935 in Recife, Brasil

[Sasha]

Anyone mentioned this book yet? http://www.akpress.org/orgasmsofhistory.html

Edit; the google preview has the table of contents, wiki the different uprisings, they are all intresting; http://books.google.nl/books?id=VsnB0WA9zwEC&pg=PR6&lpg=PP1&focus=viewport&hl=nl&output=html_text

[Prometeo liberado]

New Jewel Movement? Probably my favorite.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Just because Connolly participated in the Easter Rising does not make a left-wing Uprising. The Rising was planned, organised and carried out by the Irish Republican Brotherhood - a right-wing nationalist organisation. Connolly made a political error in judgement in participating in the Rising. Furthermore, he compounded the error by failing to have the Irish Citizens Army participate in the Rising under its own banner. Connolly did not actually have unanimous support within the ICA or the SPI for participating - there was a major debate within both organisations and the ITGWU over Connolly's decision to participate in the Rising and fly the tricolour over Liberty Hall - and his supporters only agreed to allow him to do it after he blackmailed them into it.

So, would you call Connolly a traitor to the Irish workers' movement for ultimately siding with the nationalists?

[Bala Perdida]

1911 Magonista rebellion. Probably the only Anarchist uprising in the western hemisphere, that I know of, at the time. Shame it ended up failing.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Additional revolutions:

1980-1981 -- MIR (Revolutionary Left Movement of Chile) brazenly led an uprising against the Pinochet regime despite being completely cut off from any form of foreign support unlike their earlier stint from 1973-1976 during which time they did receive assistance from the Argentine ERP before the 1976 coup formally led to the "Dirty War" and the disappearance of ERP operatives. However, the "foco" was so isolated that it wasn't discovered by Chilean soldiers until July 1981 at which point the MIR guerrillas and military fought on and off until October 1981 when its members were arrested and subsequently executed.

1975-1977 -- Argentina's ERP conducted a last-ditch attempt to incite revolution, arguably their most successful attempt at revolution in Argentina, when they seize portions of Tucuman province in Argentina. In December 1975, members of their group almost seized a weapons depot near Buenos Aires to support the Tucuman operation but were promptly eliminated by the military. At this point, Isabel Peron had signed "annihilation measures" giving the military free reign to eliminate the ERP. By the 1976 coup, the ERP had been so weakened that the Videla regime had simply to mop up any remaining ERP operatives. Recognizing their defeat, some ERP operatives escaped to Nicaragua to fight for the FSLN.

[newdayrising]

2006 Revolution in Nepal leads to the fall of the monarchy and the institution of a modern democracy (The most successful Communist revolution in the post-Cold War era)

How is it a "communist" revolution if it led to the institution of a "modern democracy"?

[Brotto Rühle]

1953: East German Uprising.

1956: Hungarian revolution.

Not sure if they were both listed, but probably a couple VERY important ones.

[Geiseric]

There's arminius, the Germanic chieftain who managed to unite the Germans against the Romans. And there's Simon bar Kokhba, who is very likely the person they based Jesus off, seeing as he led the struggle for a free Judea. And of course there's Spartacus, who led the slaves in the third servile war and bested the Roman army on several occasions.

[juljd]

The Nicaraguan revolution in 1979 when the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship. Maybe someone mentioned it

[Per Levy]

There's arminius, the Germanic chieftain who managed to unite the Germans against the Romans. And there's Simon bar Kokhba, who is very likely the person they based Jesus off, seeing as he led the struggle for a free Judea. And of course there's Spartacus, who led the slaves in the third servile war and bested the Roman army on several occasions.

are you mocking this thread? i mean even you cant be serious about this stuff.

[Jolly Red Giant]

SL - you have demonstrated in the couple of dozen comments that you have contributed on this forum that you have little knowledge or understanding of Irish history and politics. I previously suggested an approach you should adopt before coming out with more of the nonsense like this -


So, would you call Connolly a traitor to the Irish workers' movement for ultimately siding with the nationalists?

So to answer you - no - Connolly was not a traitor to the Irish workers' movement but he did make a major error in political judgement in participating in the Easter Rising under the banner of nationalism.

All revolutionaries make mistakes and this one was a doozy. It is unfortunate that he was executed before he had an opportunity to correct his mistake (which he would have done) during the years of intense class warfare in Ireland which followed.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

How is it a "communist" revolution if it led to the institution of a "modern democracy"?

Well, since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, Nepal has had 4/6 of their Prime Ministers be Maoist or Marxist-Leninist. Although it is not perfect, as Social Democrats and a pseudo-capitalist economy still remain in Nepal. However, the fact that Maoists fought a 10-year war to get this much political freedom is admirable considering our modern post-Cold War world where Communism has become a target of politically correct humor.

[Prometeo liberado]

The Nicaraguan revolution in 1979 when the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship. Maybe someone mentioned it

Hmm, a revolution of poets and Jesuits. Yeah that's gonna turn out juuust fine!

[Wake_Robin]

There's the 1896-7 War of Canudos in Brazil, led by Antônio Conselheiro. Didn't end well, apparently.

[blake 3:17]

New Jewel Movement? Probably my favorite.

The New Jewel Movement was fantastic. I find it strange you'd criticize the Sandanista Revolution when they were so tight.

I've been very happy to know folks who participated it in it.

[blake 3:17]

So to answer you - no - Connolly was not a traitor to the Irish workers' movement but he did make a major error in political judgement in participating in the Easter Rising under the banner of nationalism.

All revolutionaries make mistakes and this one was a doozy. It is unfortunate that he was executed before he had an opportunity to correct his mistake (which he would have done) during the years of intense class warfare in Ireland which followed.

A bigger mistake would have been not participating.

[Prometeo liberado]

The New Jewel Movement was fantastic. I find it strange you'd criticize the Sandinista Revolution when they were so tight.

I've been very happy to know folks who participated it in it.

You know, it's not that I hate them it's just that they were a coalition with some very reactionary elements. Take the Jesuits, please, they were pushing that Liberation Theology shite not so much to save souls but to save the Jesuit nation in Nicaragua. Yes the Pope came and yelled at some priests on the tarmac but that shit goes on all the time behind closed doors. Pope was only pissed that it was a lefty government and not a Pinochet style get-on. After that the middle class businessmen who fought now took the hint and the party was over. Augusto Sandino wept and Daniel Ortega made the word "Occupy" famous well before the wall street kids did when he and the party elite took over a city block of mansions, locked the doors and basically shut themselves up 'till they had become good Christians and almost handed it all back to 18 idiots calling themselves 'Contras".
Just the way I feel, pretty sure.

[blake 3:17]

You know, it's not that I hate them it's just that they were a coalition with some very reactionary elements. Take the Jesuits, please, they were pushing that Liberation Theology shite not so much to save souls but to save the Jesuit nation in Nicaragua.

The Sandanista revolution was the only successful revolution of the 20th century to abolish the death penalty.

Worth considering.

[Jolly Red Giant]

A bigger mistake would have been not participating.
And please demonstrate how you come to this conclusion :rolleyes:

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

The Sandanista revolution was the only successful revolution of the 20th century to abolish the death penalty.

Worth considering.

Unfortunately, Daniel Ortega has joined the "anti-imp" crowd after he met Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in January 2012. In addition, the country is as poor as ever because capitalism is still in force in Nicaragua instead of a socialist economy.

[newdayrising]

:glare:
Well, since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, Nepal has had 4/6 of their Prime Ministers be Maoist or Marxist-Leninist. Although it is not perfect, as Social Democrats and a pseudo-capitalist economy still remain in Nepal. However, the fact that Maoists fought a 10-year war to get this much political freedom is admirable considering our modern post-Cold War world where Communism has become a target of politically correct humor.

Ok, but why do you consider it communist? Or a revolution for that matter?

[DasFapital]

New Jewel Movement? Probably my favorite.

Reagan smash!

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

:glare:

Ok, but why do you consider it communist? Or a revolution for that matter?

Well, a Nepalese Maoist group fought for 10 years against an oppressive government and won by abolishing the monarchy and implementing a political system favoring socialists and communists. In addition, the Nepalese Maoists were not supported by any foreign governments, so you could not count it out as a reactionary puppet like the Free Syrian Army or the Sudan People's Liberation Army.

[G-Dogg]

In December 1975, members of their group almost seized a weapons depot near Buenos Aires to support the Tucuman operation but were promptly eliminated by the military.

I wouldn't even use the word almost. ERP was infiltrated and the military knew about the attack in advance. They never stood a chance. But they did succesfully seize other weapons depots before the attack on Monte Chingolo.

[newdayrising]

Well, a Nepalese Maoist group fought for 10 years against an oppressive government and won by abolishing the monarchy and implementing a political system favoring socialists and communists. In addition, the Nepalese Maoists were not supported by any foreign governments, so you could not count it out as a reactionary puppet like the Free Syrian Army or the Sudan People's Liberation Army.

Ok, but this is an explanation of why you support it, or why it's a "good thing" in your opinion. What I asked is why you think it's a revolution and/or communist.
Whether maoists and other stalinists are communists might be a matter of opinion (mine is that they're not), but the fact is they in your own words implemented a "modern democracy" and in their own words, are fighting for capitalism in Nepal, through class colaborationist politics.
The bourgeoisie still controls production, the working class is still subjected to it. Even if we buy the "anti feudal" line it would still have been a bourgeois revolution, not a communist one. However, Nepal was already capitalist and remains capitalist. A change of government and how they manage capitalism is not a communist revolution, whateve the parties in power might call themselves.
One might believe you need this in order to have a communist revolution later on (I don't), but To call that a communist revolution shows a misunderstanding of both terms, with all due respect.

[laoch na phoblacht]

Just because Connolly participated in the Easter Rising does not make a left-wing Uprising. The Rising was planned, organised and carried out by the Irish Republican Brotherhood - a right-wing nationalist organisation. Connolly made a political error in judgement in participating in the Rising. Furthermore, he compounded the error by failing to have the Irish Citizens Army participate in the Rising under its own banner. Connolly did not actually have unanimous support within the ICA or the SPI for participating - there was a major debate within both organisations and the ITGWU over Connolly's decision to participate in the Rising and fly the tricolour over Liberty Hall - and his supporters only agreed to allow him to do it after he blackmailed them into it.

"the cause of Labour is the cause of Ireland"- James Connolly
The IRB contacted Connolly because they worried that he was planing his own rising which would have disrupted their plans. not that it mattered 1916 failed but due to the ICA's participation the ideas of Connolly became a part of republican discourse during the war for independence and afterwards.

If he had not leftwing ideas would not have became as key to republicanism as they did

[Jolly Red Giant]

"the cause of Labour is the cause of Ireland"- James Connolly
So you can pluck a quote from Connolly out of context and imply it supports your contention - try harder


The IRB contacted Connolly because they worried that he was planing his own rising which would have disrupted their plans.
Even here yourself you acknowledge that the IRB didn't approach Connolly because of any ideological shift to the left - but because they were worried he would dsirupt their plans. Connolly made a political mistake by throwing his lot in with them (and it was not without controvery as many of his closest supporters within the ICA and SPI opposed this move).


not that it mattered 1916 failed but due to the ICA's participation the ideas of Connolly became a part of republican discourse during the war for independence and afterwards.
Utterly false - while there was a small number of IRA and republican activists during the war of independence and civil war who were left-wing (O'Donnell being the best known) - there was very little crossover between republican and labour/socialist activism during this period. The nationalist/republican movement was right-wing in outlook, was dominated by right-wing elements and actively worked to undermine the growing support for socialist ideas during this period. During the civil war both pro- and anti-treaty forces suppressed and attempted to suppress strike action and occupations by workers. Indeed all strands of republicanism/nationalism were more concerned with defeating 'red-flag bolshivism' than the Brits.


If he had not leftwing ideas would not have became as key to republicanism as they did

I would further argue that socialism did not become part of republican discourse and never has been anything more than on the fringes of the republican movement, completely subservient to nationalism at all times. Every step along the way socialist ideas are pushed aside as republicanism flounders in its inability to defeat imperialism and inevitably ends up in compromise.

Now - again - if you or the other couple of left republicans on here want to put forward a coherent argument, backed up with historical evidence, as to the nature of republicanism from 1916-1923 then go ahead and I will deal with it in a comprehensive fashion.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Ok, but this is an explanation of why you support it, or why it's a "good thing" in your opinion. What I asked is why you think it's a revolution and/or communist.
Whether maoists and other stalinists are communists might be a matter of opinion (mine is that they're not), but the fact is they in your own words implemented a "modern democracy" and in their own words, are fighting for capitalism in Nepal, through class colaborationist politics.
The bourgeoisie still controls production, the working class is still subjected to it. Even if we buy the "anti feudal" line it would still have been a bourgeois revolution, not a communist one. However, Nepal was already capitalist and remains capitalist. A change of government and how they manage capitalism is not a communist revolution, whateve the parties in power might call themselves.
One might believe you need this in order to have a communist revolution later on (I don't), but To call that a communist revolution shows a misunderstanding of both terms, with all due respect.

Well, I understood revolutions as events that constitute the continuing struggle against the global bourgeoisie, regardless of what came before or after. Were these Nepalese Maoists not struggling against a bourgeoisie in the name of something at least half-decently good for socialism? (Mind you, I do not support Maoism but these poverty-ridden peasants in Nepal had nothing else to lean on and their ultimate choice was highly justified.) What came after the dust settled is a different story and this struggle's end result I would not support. Essentially defeatist social democracy at its worst (or finest) when it involves nominal "Communists" and "Maoists" getting in bed with the pro-Indian and reactionary social democratic Nepali Congress.

[laoch na phoblacht]

Now - again - if you or the other couple of left republicans on here want to put forward a coherent argument, backed up with historical evidence, as to the nature of republicanism from 1916-1923 then go ahead and I will deal with it in a comprehensive fashion.

I am not going to say irish republicanism in the 1920's was solely a left wing movement but the prominence of leftists such as Frank Ryan who became editor of An phoblacht was undeniable a socialist, and you can not say that leftists had came do lead the republican movement by the 1960s.

this is all a result of Connolly's addition of leftist politics to republicanism,and considering labours abandonment of the working people it is good that connolly made the decision to join the republican movement because if he had not the left in Ireland would be much weaker.

Also going back to the 1800's there has been a left wing dimension to republican movements such as Micheal Davitt's influence over fenianism and his role in the land war.

ps every anti-imperialist should support struggles for national independence

[Jolly Red Giant]

I am not going to say irish republicanism in the 1920's was solely a left wing movement but the prominence of leftists such as Frank Ryan who became editor of An phoblacht was undeniable a socialist,
In July 1922 Liam Lynch ordered Frank Ryan to suppress the Knocklong Soviet. Ryan carried out those orders without question to the extent that he himself climbed on the roof of the Knocklong Creamery to remove the red flag flying there. Ryan might have been 'undeniably' a socialist but was quite prepared to suppress strike action by workers in the interests of the 'republic'.


and you can not say that leftists had came do lead the republican movement by the 1960s.
For a very short period of time and resulting in a split whereby the right-wing nationalists became the dominant force in republicanism.


this is all a result of Connolly's addition of leftist politics to republicanism,and considering labours abandonment of the working people
When did 'labour' abandon working people? The Labour Party was formed by the Irish Trade Union Congress on a proposal by Connolly in 1912 (it was called the Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress - ILPTUC). Labour fought a titanic battle in Dublin in 1913. When between its formation in 1912 and the Easter Rising in 1916 did 'labour' abandon working people?


it is good that connolly made the decision to join the republican movement because if he had not the left in Ireland would be much weaker.
The opposite is actually the case - it is precisely because of Connolly's alliance with right-wing nationalism in 1916 that socialist forces were weakened. From 1917-1922 the labour movement (driven by Marxist forces) fought a class war with the Brits and right-wing nationalism. During this period nationalism was willing to abandon its movement for national independence if it was necessary to ensure the defeat of socialism/bolshevism in Ireland. Republicanism/nationalism used Connolly's involvement in 1916 to attempt to force socialist forces in to a subservient role in the struggle from 1917-1922 and since. 'The cause of Ireland is the cause of Labour' but the 'cause of Ireland' can only be encompassed through the 'cause of Labour' - not the other way around.


Also going back to the 1800's there has been a left wing dimension to republican movements such as Micheal Davitt's influence over fenianism and his role in the land war.
Since the initial intervention of the Normans in Ireland in 1169 every single rebellion/uprising/conflcit has had a social element and every single movement have been betrayed/suppressed by the forces of wealth (initially feudal and then colonial and native capitalist/merchant classes).

In the modern period -
1798 Uprising - 'the rich always betray the poor'
1808-1816 - the Caravat Uprising - landless labourers and cottiers rose against (not the Brits) the Irish tenant farmer class who formed their own movement (the Shanavests) to suppress the Caravats
1819-1924 - The Rockite Rebellion - landless labourers and cottiers rose against (not the Brits) the Irish tenant farmer class
1820-1826 - The anti-combination law movement - widespread strike action by journeymen tradesmen and urban labourers against (not the Brits) the Irish merchant and master trade classes.
1831 - the Terry Alt Uprising (the largest and most socially conscious movement of the period) - landless labourers and cottiers rose against (not the Brits) but the Irish tenant farmer class
1845-1850 - Famine food riots - conscious and organised food rioting by urban and rural poor against the Irish merchant and farmer classes who were exploiting the famine for financial gain at the expense of millions of poor people.

Even taking your arguments about the Fenians - primarily a movement of small farmers and labourers - it abandoned the interests of the small farmers and labourers to the interests of the large farmers and Catholic Church and shafted those who had supported it when the Land Acts were introduced. At all times the leadership of the Fenians (and subsequently the Land League) subverted the class interests of the small farmers and labourers to the interests of the cross-class alliance of nationalism. This leadership readily turned on the lower social classes when social conflict arose and when push came to shove were willing to abandon the struggle for independence to prevent the emergence of a class war.


ps every anti-imperialist should support struggles for national independence
Of course that is the case - that is not the issue.

Subverting the class struggle to the struggle of the nationalist/republican movement is dooming the movement to defeat and a compromise with imperialism.

The question to be answered is not - should socialists support the movement of 'national liberation' or self-determination'?
The question to be answered is - how can socialists ensure that social, economic and political emancipation can be achieved by the working class - through subverting the class movement to nationalism/republicanism or through the placing of the class struggle at the head of the movement?

Irish republicanism is incapable of achieving its objectives. As a cross-class alliance it will inevitably seccumb to the interests of nationalism. Everytime that Irish nationalism/republicanism has reached the dead-end of guerrillaism it has ended up compromising with imperialism (1921 and 1995 are the most obvious examples).

Self-determination for the population of Ireland can only be achieved as part of a general social, economic and political liberation resulting for class struggle and social revolution - not through the placing of nationalism at the head of the movement and the support of the outdated methods of nationalist struggle. Nationalism/republicanism is capable of nothing other than compromise with imperialism.

Connolly actually understood this right up to period immediately before th Easter Rising and there are still indications that he understood his own mistaken strategy - the unfortunate thing is that less than a year later the Irish working class embarked on a five year class war for social emancipation that with Connolly (and the now exiled Larkin) at its head could well have resulted in socialist revolution. Connolly's political misjudgement in 1916 resulted not only in his own death but possibly the loss of the potential for socialist revolution in Ireland the the following six years.

[laoch na phoblacht]

i could write some long winded reply but sometimes it is better to say stuff in simple language. there is no right wing republican party in Ireland because Connolly has came to be one of the main figures of Irish republicanism. Labour chose not to contest elections to ensure nationalists had a majority in the 20's, and the present Irish labour party is far from socialist.

time has shown that Connoly made the right call

Sin é
Mise le meas

[Jolly Red Giant]

i could write some long winded reply but sometimes it is better to say stuff in simple language.
Or to say what you really mean - 'I know I haven't a leg to stand on so I am going to bluff - again'


there is no right wing republican party in Ireland because Connolly has came to be one of the main figures of Irish republicanism.
Fianna Fail would dispute that
Fine Gael would dispute that
Sinn Fein are in coalition in the North with the DUP and implementing neo-liberal austerity

There are a couple of small left republican grouplets that have little support and a couple of larger right-wing 'dissident' groups who have more support.

At the moment even the normal raft of small left republican groups don't exist.


Labour chose not to contest elections to ensure nationalists had a majority in the 20's,
Again false - the ILPTUC leadership were blackmailed into not standing in the 1918 election - with the nationalists using Connolly's participation in 1916 as a big stick to beat them with. The ILPTUC did stand in the 1920 election and won 380 seats (SF won 550 on 38% of the vote). The ILPTUC did stand in the 1922 election and 17 of the 18 candidates were elected - the 18th lost by 13 votes. Most of those elected were strike leaders from the huge wave of strikes and workplace soviets that were taking place at the time. If the ILPTUC ran enough candidates it would have been the second biggest party (if not the biggest).


and the present Irish labour party is far from socialist.
But we are not talking about the present LP - you claimed that the LP abandoned workers between 1912 when it was formed and the time of connolly's participation in the 1916 Rising. This is rubbish and you have produced zero evidence to back it up.


And then we have the following blunt statement of nonsense - again with zero evidence to back it up -

time has shown that Connoly made the right call
How ??????

Is there a socialist republic in Ireland? - no
Is Ireland 'independent' ? - no
Has republicanism succeeded in any of its objectives (historic or current) ? - no
Do the Brits still occupy part of Ireland ? - yes
Has republicanism once again compromised with Imperialism ? - yes
Is SF a left wing party ? - no - (it is a populist nationalist party that on occasions uses left wing rhetoric)
Is there any prospect of republicanism moving to the left in the immediate or medium term ? - no (if anything it will shift to the right).

So - please inform us how Connolly made the right call ?

[laoch na phoblacht]

yes sf are left wing

so politely fuck off

[Jolly Red Giant]

yes sf are left wing

so politely fuck off
Specially for you -

SF Education ministers - and there have been three of them - have consciously acted to privatise education in the North. Martin McGuinness while Northern education minister was a cheerleader for PPP's and PFI. Ruane continued his work and O'Dowd was more of the same.

McGuinness praised the use of PPP's and PFI and while Ruane was signing new PPP and PFI contracts for school construction, maintenance and operation, she was sending £350million of unused capital expenditure back to Westminister. Furthermore - the PPP's and PFI have proved to be a disaster, with the schools being poorly designed and badly built to the point of being unsafe for students and staff, the Education Dept. carrying the can for the necessary repairs. At the same time the PPP and PFI contracts signed by McGuinness and Ruane will rake in profits for the private developers for decades into the future.

Conor Murphy (then Minister for Regional Development) backed the introduction of water charges - In a meeting in 2007 he told representatives of the Campaign Against Water Charges that the charges were necessary because people in the North had stopped paying for water through regional rates in 1999.

Furthermore Conor Murphy presided over the crisis of the NI water service in 2010 which happened directly as a result of his use of PPP to bring about the privatisation of NI Water through the back door. Conor Murphy was directly responsible for attempts by Translink to sack 70 workers as part of his efforts to privatise the public bus service and the sacking of NCB traffic wardens. In 2009 he introduced legislation to privatise the ports.

This is what Martin McGuinness said -


“PFI contracts highlights the opportunities for partnership with the private sector in the pursuit of good value for money and the effective use of resources to meet the needs of schools.”
“It is now clear that PFI does offer real potential for value for money solutions to the pressing capital investment needs of our schools generally. My Department will, over the coming months, be consulting with schools authorities and other interested bodies, on its plans for the extended future use of PFI in conjunction with conventional capital new starts”.
"My Department has proved that PPP is a viable method of procuring facilities for young people - just last month the last of four pathfinder projects opened its doors to pupils. My Department will continue to work with school authorities to ensure that the best use can be made of PPP in tackling the backlog in the schools estate. Building on last year’s PPP announcement, I have decided to include two PPP clusters in this year’s capital programme. This will be subject to a value for money deal being secured with the private sector.”
“This is a challenging but exciting project, which will for the first time bring together controlled and integrated school sectors working together within PPP to procure new facilities without in any way compromising the ethos or management of the individual schools and I would hope to pursue this approach further in the future.”
“These two clusters represent new approaches to using PPP and I believe that the Department and the school authorities should continue to explore the opportunities provided by PPP.”Conor Murphy was responsible for putting large parts of the water supply network into private hands. When opening a water treatment facility in Antrim constructed with the help of Aecom in 2009, Murphy praised the PFI project saying it would “deliver an efficient, cost effective and high quality water source”. Of course this was before the crisis hit NI water in 2010.