"The Final Insult"

[PRC-UTE]

The "Republic" of Ireland apparently offered some republicans in the six counties of Northern Ireland £50,000 to assasinate marxists who were influential in the republican movement. :angry: The IR's turned it down though.


The Final Insult!

Johnny White and Peter Collins break their 35 year silence on the events of 1969 after recieving invitations to a press conference for a campaign to clear Capt Kelly’s name.

It was 1969 in Derry and the local Officer Commanding of the IRA, Johnny White got a request to set up a meeting the next day through a member of the IRA in South Derry. During this period Captain James Kelly had been holding meetings throughout the Six counties on behalf of the Dublin regime as a result of the Loyalist and RUC attacks on Catholic neighbourhoods and the burning of thousands of Catholic homes. The Dublin regime was coming under increasing pressure to help the beleagured population in the North who were virtually defenceless. Pleas were made by Catholics for the government to help. We now understand that Captain Kelly was sent north with a mission, a mission to divide the Republican movement, and to provide the traditionalists with money and weapons and to isolate the more radical Marxist leadership. The twenty-six county regime was afraid that if the then Dublin leadership stayed in control of a growing and vibrant movement then that was a threat to the state itself.

The day after the initial contact a meeting took place in Derry City attended by Johnny White, Peter Collins, Micky Montgomery and Captain James Kelly of the ‘Free State’ army. Two of those at the meeting, Captain Kelly and Micky Montgomery have since died. The following is an account of the meeting given to the Starry Plough by the two surviving men who attended the meeting.

MEETING SET UP

“The Kelly meeting in 1969 was arranged following a previous meeting in South Derry. Contacts were made with Johnny White (OC) asking for a meeting with the Derry Brigade. The following day Johnny White along with his Adjutant Micky Montgomery and Derry Brigade Intelligence Officer Peter Collins met with a man who introduced himself as Captain James Kelly and said he was an intelligence officer with the Irish Army (Free State). He also said he had the authority to speak on behalf of the Free State regime at the time.

£50,000

The meeting lasted only a few minutes. Kelly after explaining his role offered those present arms, training and money (£50,000). When those present asked Kelly what the Government wanted in return Kelly said ‘A guarantee that the struggle would be contained within the Six counties’. The OC then pointed out to Kelly that he knew as well as him that situation was guaranteed already as the standing orders within the IRA prevented any attacks within the 26 counties.
“At this point the OC then demanded to know exactly what Kelly wanted in return for these weapons and money and aggressively demanded, while pointing his finger towards Kelly, that he give him a straight answer. Kelly then said ‘the elimination of certain members of the leadership of the Republican Movement.’

“SIX”

“At this point both Mickey and Peter joined into the conversation in a heated way and Mickey asked ‘How many?’ to which Kelly answered ‘Six’. Kelly was then told in no uncertain terms to ‘F*** Off!’ The meeting then ended.

“Immediately after this the three members of the Derry Brigade made contact with the General Head Quarters of the IRA in Dublin and explained that a serious situation had arisen and that they needed a meeting with the leadership as soon as possible. The following day a meeting was held at a venue in South Derry where a report of the previous day’s events was relayed to the Chief of Staff of the IRA. The Chief of Staff told the Derry Brigade OC that he should have got the £50,000 first then told Kelly to ‘F*** Off!’

NO FURTHER ACTION

“The representatives from Derry were then told that as they had now reported the approach from Kelly to the leadership they should take no further action and the leadership would take care of it from then on. After returning to Derry City both meetings were reported to the local command staff.

“Over the years nothing was said about these events other than to a very few very prominent republicans and former Civil Rights campaigners. We are not, at this stage however, prepared to name these people but believe that they will come forward in due course.

FREE STATE AGENT

“We would take this opportunity to urge all republicans to have nothing to do with this campaign to clear the name of this ‘Free State’ agent whose only legacy was the division and split of the Republican Movement.

“We believe the reason the ‘Free State’ Government was offering this deal was because they feared less an armed struggle contained within the Six counties than an armed struggle throughout the Thirty-two Counties. They feared a scenario where tens of working class men and women would take to the streets and challenge their authority and attempt to change their system into one that put working class people first.

“As the Republican Movement was to the forefront of that struggle it would have been important to divide the movement and form a organisation that would have been prepared to pay lip service to the Free State Government. In order to orchestrate this it would have been necessary to eliminate those from within the leadership who would have been considered Socialist or Communist. This would then have laid the groundwork for the formation of a right wing and catholic leadership that would have been prepared to dance to the tune of the Dublin regime.”

THE PROVOCATION THAT LED TO THESE CLAIMS BEING MADE PUBLIC

Johnny White and Peter Collins both agree that the final insult to them came when cards dropped through their respective letterboxes inviting them to attend a press conference that was part of the Captain Kelly Justice Campaign. So incensed they were that someone who they had intimate knowledge of attempting to split the Republican Movement in 1969 should be lauded as an innocent victim of injustice that they decided to attend the press conference to finally, after 35 years silence, get this information into the open.

The invitation, printed here, proved to be the final insult to these two veteran republicans. Thirty-five years after meeting Captain James Kelly and being offered £50,000 for the elimation of six leaders of the Republican Movement they now found themselves invited to a campaign press conference that would aim to clear the name of someone they viewed as nothing more than an agent of the Free State regime and whose motives in 1969 were to split and divide the Republican Movement.

Johnny and Peter have both stated categorically that they would not have attended the press conference if it hadn’t been for the Secretary of the said campaign, Fionnbarra Ó Dochartaigh, sending them both personal invitations to attend. But when these invitations landed on their doorsteps it was then, and only then that they decided to attend and reveal the full truth behind Captain Kelly’s motivation in 1969. Johnny White commented, “We both took this as a grave insult to every Republican who stood up against the ‘Free State’. It is ironic that if the ‘Free State’ apologists who attended the meeting had only listened to what myself and Peter had to say it could have actually helped the Kelly family find the justice that they are looking for. Although from our point of view no such justice was shown to Republicans right from the foundation of the state. Right from Ballyseedy, Drumboe, the Curragh, Enda McGee, Martin Bryan, John Morris, Ronan MacLochlainn, the list goes on and on of Republicans denied justice by the Free State. These are all prime examples of ‘Free State’ justice shown towards Republicans and Republican Socialists.

He went on “We would also, as former leaders of the Republican Movement in Derry, categorically refute claims made by Fionnbarra Ó Dochartaigh, that he was a member of the leadership of the Republican Movement in Derry. At no time was this person ever anywhere near leadership level, especially during the period in question. In fact at that time he spent more time in Cork than in Derry.”

When asked if they would support Fionnbarra Ó Dochartaigh’s call for a tribunal into these events both Peter Collins and Johnny White said that they would no problem supporting such an inquiry. That view has also been echoed by another prominent veteran Derry Republican Liam O Comain who was also prominent at the time. Johnny said, “We would definately support an inquiry into these events, not just Kelly’s court cases but also into Kelly’s role in 1969 and into the orders he was given and why?”


© Copyright Starry Plough Publications 2004

[StarryPlough]

This is shocking as most Irish Republicans would hold marxist/socialist values.

[BOZG]

It shouldn't be any suprise that both the British and Irish governments were involved in such actions though I object to any member of the IRA/INLA/IRSP /SF and such groups being labelled Marxist.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:29 PM
This is shocking as most Irish Republicans would hold marxist/socialist values.
Nationalism and socialism, compatable? Yeah right. :rolleyes:

[PRC-UTE]

It shouldn't be any suprise that both the British and Irish governments were involved in such actions though I object to any member of the IRA/INLA/IRSP /SF and such groups being labelled Marxist.

The INLA and IRSP are founded on the ideas of Connolly who was a marxist and a labor organiser. The original ISRP (founded by James Connolly in 1896) counted among its supporters Karl Marx's daughter.

The Free State gov't supported the Provisional Rosary Bead Bigrade and was afraid of the influence of left-wing republicans.

Funny because I don't see the Brit or Irish gov't arming death squads to take care of the trendy lefties who denounce us as "nationalists". The fact that they consider left-wing republicans the greatest threat to the survival of their state is quite an endorsement IMO.


Nationalism and socialism, compatable? Yeah right.

The IRSP at least, aren't nationalist. Nationalists despise republicans.

Those workers who defend the Brit occupation of Ireland make good nationalists though. As Marx said, you are the dupes of the British ruling class.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Enigma+Aug 30 2004, 10:43 PM--> (Enigma @ Aug 30 2004, 10:43 PM)
StarryPlough

This is shocking as most Irish Republicans would hold marxist/socialist values.
Nationalism and socialism, compatable? Yeah right. :rolleyes: [/b]
Actually most republicans are very internationalist. Republicanism always has been, going back to its beginnings in the late 18th century and the solidarity and cooperation between the United Irishmen and the French revolutionaries, and at a later stage the United Scotsmen as well.

This has continued up to the present with the continued solidarity with oppressed peoples in Palestine, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Latin America, Turkey, as well as the relationship the movement had with the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement.

Can one be a nationalist and an internationalist at the same time? Seeing as Irish Republicanism has had internationalism at its very core since it conception, who knows? And by internationalism I don't mean the type of utopian 'no-nationalism' bollocks espoused by so many trendy lefties.

[Conghaileach]

Oh, and seeing as it features so prominently in Engima's signature, the Chartists supported Irish 'nationalism' too (calling for the reestablishment of the Irish parliament), and worked with groups such as the Young Ireland movement. :o

[DaCuBaN]

Oh, and seeing as it features so prominently in Engima's signature, the Chartists supported Irish 'nationalism' too (calling for the reestablishment of the Irish parliament)

I've always had the impression that they were making the call for devolution and no more.


Nationalism and socialism, compatable?

What is nationalism? Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) as usual has an excellent definition of the term, the basic principle of which is:


Nationalism is a concept of identity which members of a particular government, nation, society, or territory may collectively feel. Nationalists strive to create or sustain a nation based on various notions of political legitimacy. These notions of political legitimacy can derive from the Romantic theory of "cultural identity", the liberal argument that political legitimacy is derived from the consent of a region's population, or combinations of the two

So with this in mind, nationalism would not be incompatible with socialism, despite the fact that I dearly wish it was so :lol:

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 11:10 AM

Oh, and seeing as it features so prominently in Engima's signature, the Chartists supported Irish 'nationalism' too (calling for the reestablishment of the Irish parliament)
I've always had the impression that they were making the call for devolution and no more.
I suppose you could call it devolution, but I don't think that word fits with the current interpretation, as seen through New Labour's creation of parliaments for Scotland, Wales and (occassionally) the six counties. These devolved parliaments are still ultimately not independent parliaments as there is much input, and indeed control, from London.

What the Chartists supported for Ireland was essentially an independent parliament, one even more democratic than what certain Catholic nationalist leaders in Ireland (like O'Connell, for instance) wanted.

[h&s]

This is shocking as most Irish Republicans would hold marxist/socialist values.


Nationalism and socialism, compatable? Yeah right. :rolleyes:
Why is republicanism necesarily nationalism? Republicans want to tear down the border between the North and South, regardless of their other views, that is quite Marxist.
All we hear in the press are incidents of racist attacks between the two communities, but all struggles have their racist elements - its a fact of life. It doesn't mean that the vast majority of republicans are though.

[chebol]

Up the Irps!

But, really, a truly shocking story.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 12:59 AM
The IRSP at least, aren't nationalist. Nationalists despise republicans.
Irish National Liberation Army

Can't you see the problem in it?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 10:39 AM
Oh, and seeing as it features so prominently in Engima's signature, the Chartists supported Irish 'nationalism' too (calling for the reestablishment of the Irish parliament), and worked with groups such as the Young Ireland movement. :o
Actually they supported Catholic emancipation mainly. Just to correct you.

The major infuence on Chartist policy on Ireland was Daniel O'connell, who supported emancipation. Though undoubtedly the end goal was the destruction of the union. Though chartists only ever campained for emancipation, and social equality.

The man was fool, and was slaughtered by Peel.

Another link was Fergus O'Connor, who edited the Norther Star newspaper. However he was a sworn enemy against O'Connell... and only really wanted in because of the political gain for his own cause, which was the land plan.

It also pissed off William Lovett no end.


If you consider political and social equality a bad thing then shoot me.

[James]

Can one be a nationalist and an internationalist at the same time?

Can you expand upon this.
Especially your following comment:


And by internationalism I don't mean the type of utopian 'no-nationalism' bollocks espoused by so many trendy lefties.

Like that trendy lefty, karl marx?
I'm confused.

It seems to me that you are basically being more nationalistic than my comments a few months back, which were deemed so nationalist that i was classed as a supporter of imperialism: which got me kicked from the CC.
And you are a mod! (or admin or whatever). Nice double standards (which makes a change. Doesn't it.)

[Guest1]

Except for your comment on "no-nationalism", i agree with you conghaileach. Marxists should always support the struggles of oppressed peoples against their imperialist masters.

As far as Republicanism goes, I'm not prepared to support Monarchy instead.

Opposing some of the methods and ideas of parts of that movement does not mean you must oppose the whole movement.

[Louis Pio]

I have a hard time seeing how Irish Republicanism (or at least the part of it the 2 irish comrades here represent) can be seen as nationalistic. All we have seen is people putting them down for what they accuse them of and then because of the name of the armed group. Sorry but that's not serious.

The struggle of an opressed people against imperialism is of course something we support. An through the time Ireland has indeed been opressed by Britain and still are.

[DaCuBaN]

As far as Republicanism goes, I'm not prepared to support Monarchy instead.


Apathy is also a choice, but essentially you're saying that a representative democracy is favourable and should be supported by marxists to replace an oliogarchy?

Bear in mind in the case in question we are talking of a monarchy that is almost entirely detached from the political system: It is the UK parliament that sanctioned actions in N.Ireland. Frankly though, it's a simple one for me: The enemy of my enemy is not my friend: Do we blindly support Bin Laden for opposing US imperialism? or the Shiite's?

In this instance, it's typical: There are members of the movement that are staunchly 'nationalist' - in that their primary goal is to get rid of 'Britons'. This is something surely we should not support. However, there are equally going to be members who simply wish to see the end of imperialism in Ireland - and them we must show our solidarity with: The atrocities commited against them are undeniable; they are a satellite colony of the UK.

I wish life was so simple as we could 'support the movement' - but as usual, we must explore the situation and deal with people on an individual basis dependant upon their actions and intent. In this instance, I remain unsure.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:10 PM
I have a hard time seeing how Irish Republicanism (or at least the part of it the 2 irish comrades here represent) can be seen as nationalistic. All we have seen is people putting them down for what they accuse them of and then because of the name of the armed group. Sorry but that's not serious.

The struggle of an opressed people against imperialism is of course something we support. An through the time Ireland has indeed been opressed by Britain and still are.
The problem is that Republicans/Nationalists or whatever banner they go under do not seem to realise that this isn't a simple case of an occupation but rather a case in which the entire state(let) is divided in two with a currently majority unionist/loyalist community (for want of a better phrase) are opposed to a unified Ireland. Republicans and Nationalists have never addressed this problem and continue to call for a United Ireland, which can only be seen as a nationalist movement. This is not the same situation as Iraq or Afghanistan as many people try to put forward.

As for the name comment, I meant that if you want to divide yourself from so called nationalists don't call yourself a national liberation army.


The argument of "we're actually internationalist, we should solidarity with such and such country" is also completely redundant. Hitler and Mussolini showed 'solidarity' with each other and with the nationalists in Spain, were they internationalists?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:10 PM
I have a hard time seeing how Irish Republicanism (or at least the part of it the 2 irish comrades here represent) can be seen as nationalistic. All we have seen is people putting them down for what they accuse them of and then because of the name of the armed group. Sorry but that's not serious.

The struggle of an opressed people against imperialism is of course something we support. An through the time Ireland has indeed been opressed by Britain and still are.
I have a hard time seeing how Irish Republicanism (or at least the part of it the 2 irish comrades here represent) can be seen as nationalistic.

They wish to force the majority of the people of Northen Ireland to accept a land plan which they do not support. If the people of NI wish to leave the union then all they have to do is vote in republican parties as the majority.

Thus to force change would be far more oppressive than to leave it as it is.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 08:16 PM
Like that trendy lefty, karl marx?
I'm confused.
No. Marx suported the rights of nations to self-determination, seeing the Irish revolution as the key to the English revolution.

Marx argued that the class war would occur within the confines of each nation, as they had developed differently through history and thus workers in each would have reached different stages of development, and class consciousness.

What I would argue for would be the creation of federations of socialist republics, each governed by their own workers (in soviets, I'd hope for, but I'm not going to make any suggestions because each struggle develops in its own way).


What I mean by this trendy lefty 'no-nationalism' ("internationalism" gone mad) is those who just seem to think that all the world's workers can arise together in one mad upheaval. History has proven this theory nonsense because, as stated above, workers of different nations of different levels of capitalist development will have different levels of class consciousness.

Let's remember that international means 'between nations'.

[Kez]

"They wish to force the majority of the people of Northen Ireland to accept a land plan which they do not support. If the people of NI wish to leave the union then all they have to do is vote in republican parties as the majority. "

assuming Ireland has a true democracy.....are you assuming this?

The fact is most of the ruling class in NI are unionists....so if you live in a capitalist democracy, and the capitalists support uunionism, then the "democracy" is a bias for unionism, hence your argument in a false one.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 05:14 PM
The problem is that Republicans/Nationalists or whatever banner they go under do not seem to realise that this isn't a simple case of an occupation but rather a case in which the entire state(let) is divided in two with a currently majority unionist/loyalist community (for want of a better phrase) are opposed to a unified Ireland. Republicans and Nationalists have never addressed this problem and continue to call for a United Ireland, which can only be seen as a nationalist movement.
Irish Republicans have always address this issue since Partition, and even before it (much of Connolly's work was dedicated to the issue). In 1932 the IRA put out a pamphlet called "An Address to the Orange Order", and during the Outdoor Relief Riots there were IRA men fighting on the Shankill and Sandy Row with Protestant workers (many unemployed) in 1934 the Republican Congress gained the nickname of the 'United Irishmen of 1934' because it drew together so many from both communities.

Later on, in the 70s, the IRA developed a policy document called Éire Nua in which a federal Ireland was advocated, and much of the document was aimed towards the unionist community. It was later dropped by the Provisionals but is still advocated by Republican Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin's first Belfast Mayor, Alec Maskey, make many overtures to Belfast's unionist community during his year in the position, which included laying a wreath at the cenotaph dedicated to soldiers who did fighting for British imperialism in many of its slaughters.



As for the name comment, I meant that if you want to divide yourself from so called nationalists don't call yourself a national liberation army.
Why? There are national liberation armies in Colombia (the Marxist ELN - which actually means National Liberation Army), and in Mexico (again, EZLN also features National Liberation Army in its title). I think that Ho Chi Minh's revolutionary army in Vietnam described itself as being a national liberation army, though I'll have to check up on that.



The argument of "we're actually internationalist, we should solidarity with such and such country" is also completely redundant. Hitler and Mussolini showed 'solidarity' with each other and with the nationalists in Spain, were they internationalists?
But what is internationalism if not oppressed people standing in solidarity with one another? The people of one nation supporting the people of another?

What exactly is internationalism to you?

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:38 PM
Why? There are national liberation armies in Colombia (the Marxist ELN - which actually means National Liberation Army), and in Mexico (again, EZLN also features National Liberation Army in its title). I think that Ho Chi Minh's revolutionary army in Vietnam described itself as being a national liberation army, though I'll have to check up on that.
I'll admit to being wrong on that.



Irish Republicans have always address this issue since Partition, and even before it (much of Connolly's work was dedicated to the issue). In 1932 the IRA put out a pamphlet called "An Address to the Orange Order", and during the Outdoor Relief Riots there were IRA men fighting on the Shankill and Sandy Row with Protestant workers (many unemployed) in 1934 the Republican Congress gained the nickname of the 'United Irishmen of 1934' because it drew together so many from both communities.

Later on, in the 70s, the IRA developed a policy document called Éire Nua in which a federal Ireland was advocated, and much of the document was aimed towards the unionist community. It was later dropped by the Provisionals but is still advocated by Republican Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin's first Belfast Mayor, Alec Maskey, make many overtures to Belfast's unionist community during his year in the position, which included laying a wreath at the cenotaph dedicated to soldiers who did fighting for British imperialism in many of its slaughters.


I'll accept that many documents have been written to the unionist community, I wasn't saying that Republicans have taken an entire "fuck them" approach to the situation but I really don't think they've concretely addressed the mood of the unionist community. Screaming 'Brits Out' at the drop of a hat, demanding a united Irish republic when the majority oppose it is not addressing those moods, nor is conducting an armed terrorist struggle addressing those moods.



But what is internationalism if not oppressed people standing in solidarity with one another? The people of one nation supporting the people of another?

What exactly is internationalism to you?

My apologies, I forgot to finish that paragraphy off. What I was implying is that by purely offering solidarit, you are not not being an internationalist. Internationalism is the rejection of 'national liberation' struggles for the sake of it, for establishing a national identity, which is large and large what Republicanism has been. It has been a national struggle which pays lip service to a socialist society afterwards, insteading of a socialist struggle with national liberation from oppression as a factor of it. There is no solution to problems of Northern Ireland on a capitalist basis and thus the socialist struggle must be the struggle put forward.



No. Marx suported the rights of nations to self-determination, seeing the Irish revolution as the key to the English revolution.

Marx argued that the class war would occur within the confines of each nation, as they had developed differently through history and thus workers in each would have reached different stages of development, and class consciousness.

And he was correct but self-determination in NI is not for a united Ireland but for remaining part of the Union? Do I agree with that? No. But the solution is not to do as I said above.



What I would argue for would be the creation of federations of socialist republics, each governed by their own workers (in soviets, I'd hope for, but I'm not going to make any suggestions because each struggle develops in its own way).

Agreed.

[James]

Cong: fair enough - i agree. I accept that nations exist in the minds of many people, hence "exist". I agree with the idea of localised democracy, going into regionalism and then larger assemblies blah blah blah (although i'm against the prescot regional assembly referendums [because they get rid of local level democracy]).


And if anyone thinks that this is me being an imperialist/nationalist again, well: i think you are an idiot.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 10:08 PM
And he was correct but self-determination in NI is not for a united Ireland but for remaining part of the Union? Do I agree with that? No. But the solution is not to do as I said above.
There are people who argue that, considering Sinn Féin’s current position in relation to dealing with the British and sitting in Stormont as ministers, the IRA was little more than the armed wing of the NICRA. There is much talk of an “internal settlement” - basically the continuation of the processes of ‘Ulsterisation’ and ‘normalisation’.

It's a pain in the arse being a socialist in the six counties. Sectarianism has been a major tool in the creation and maintenance of the state, and that has been difficult to combat. I've never met a socialist who was also a unionist. The left however is divided on how to sort out the issue.

Leftists within Sinn Féin argue that we need to sort out the national question before class politics can properly develop in Ireland (essentially a two-stage theory). Partition has held this off for 80 years because, in the six counties at least, it created a section of the working class loyal to imperialism and the Orange capitalist rulers, and another section of the workers who came to resent the fact that the ‘loyal’ workers were getting a few more scraps from the table.

Ireland’s trendy lefties (SWP, SP, and those annoying middle class anarchists – not that all anarchists are annoying, or middle class) believe that they can unite the working class of the six counties on bread and butter issues, and then get rid of partition afterwards. I personally feel this strategy is dishonest, because they’re essentially disguising their ‘nationalism’ in order to draw in the unionist working class.

The likes of the IRSP, if I recall correctly, believe that both the national liberation and class struggles are inseparable. From a pamphlet (http://www.irsm.org/irsp/tirs.html) of theirs:

“The struggle for national liberation cannot be separated from the class struggle. Any attempt to isolate one from the other will result in failure. It is meaningless to speak of a free nation, if the overwhelming majority remain oppressed, and national sovereignty is lost through multinational corporate control of the economy just as much as by partition. At the same time, someone who refuses to challenge British imperialism in Ireland cannot claim to be fighting for socialism and the continuation of partition props up the divisions in the working class of Ireland that hold us back from our own liberation. We have no choice in whether or not we wish to consider the interconnection of the national and class questions, reality forces us to do so.

We define the national liberation struggle as that struggle which seeks to force a British military withdrawal from the occupied six counties. The destruction of the pro-British loyalist armed forces. The withdrawal of British political influence from all parts of Ireland. The ending the partition of the island of Ireland and the overturning of both the partionist governments presently administering political affairs of Ireland. The gaining of collective economic control of the nation's resources by the nation as a whole and the eradication of any control or influence exercised by foreign capitalists over any aspect of the Irish economy. The recognition of a separate Irish cultural identity and the establishment of revolutionary 32- county socialist republic.

We aim to build a strong alliance in Irish society of our class in towns and cities, agricultural workers in the country-side, unemployed workers, working class refugees, linked as a movement internationally with other like-minded liberation struggles.

We firmly stand-by the struggle for a republic. On that we are inflexible, but our struggle for the republic is a means to an end. For us, the national liberation struggle is but an aspect of the struggle for socialism.”


As for the existence of the six county state, well it was a state created for the sole purpose of being a sectarian statelet that would support British capitalism. At the time of partition, Belfast was an important industrial centre for the imperialists. The anti-democratic nature of it is well summed up by this quotation.

“To seperate Ulster or a part of Ulster from Ireland is to divide the indivisable-to mutilate a living body... To refuse autonomy to Ireland because Ulster does not want it is a strange abuse of the theory of the right of minorties and a clear violation of the constitutional principle of majority rule.” - Louis Paul Dubois

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:00 PM
There are people who argue that, considering Sinn Féin’s current position in relation to dealing with the British and sitting in Stormont as ministers, the IRA was little more than the armed wing of the NICRA. There is much talk of an “internal settlement” - basically the continuation of the processes of ‘Ulsterisation’ and ‘normalisation’.
Leftists within Sinn Féin argue that we need to sort out the national question before class politics can properly develop in Ireland (essentially a two-stage theory).
Well Sinn Féin have completely exposed themselves since the setting up of Stormont. Whatever creedance they may have given to a socialist republic has been thrown out the window with the role they've played. As I already stated, I don't believe there is a solution to the national question without a class struggle.



It's a pain in the arse being a socialist in the six counties.

I won't say I know how you feel, though I have been told from comrades up North about it, particularly ones living in loyalist controlled towns.



Ireland’s trendy lefties (SWP, SP, and those annoying middle class anarchists – not that all anarchists are annoying, or middle class) believe that they can unite the working class of the six counties on bread and butter issues, and then get rid of partition afterwards.

Who exactly are the non-trendy lefties of Ireland then? The SP advocates a federalised British Isles. There is a difference between respecting the right to self-determination and hiding your 'nationalist policies'.

[PRC-UTE]

Well Sinn Féin have completely exposed themselves since the setting up of Stormont. Whatever creedance they may have given to a socialist republic has been thrown out the window with the role they've played. As I already stated, I don't believe there is a solution to the national question without a class struggle.

That's exactly our line, too, in the IRSP. "For national liberation and socialist revolution"

From a left POV PSF have no credibility at all. The stages theory is the same crap that the "officials" were spewing back in '69.



. . . you're saying that a representative democracy is favourable and should be supported by marxists to replace an oliogarchy?

The choice isn't "representative democracy v monarchy". We in the IRSP are advocating a Workers Republic - a 32 county Ireland ruled by worker's organisations, not the bosses. It was James Connolly who said, if you remove the British occupation without removing capitalism, nothing really changes.



They wish to force the majority of the people of Northen Ireland to accept a land plan which they do not support. If the people of NI wish to leave the union then all they have to do is vote in republican parties as the majority.

Thus to force change would be far more oppressive than to leave it as it is.

That's not what a leftist would argue, and even from your POV that isn't a logical statement. Who cares what an gerry-mandered "majority" wants in a colony that has been in recent times ruled as a military state?

Given that there is right now direct rule from London, it doesn't matter what the Irish people vote for. Provisional Sinn Fein is now the third biggest party in Ireland - doens't change a damn thing.

As we say in the IRSP, 'there is no parliamentary road to socialism'.

[DaCuBaN]

What I mean by this trendy lefty 'no-nationalism' ("internationalism" gone mad) is those who just seem to think that all the world's workers can arise together in one mad upheaval.

Silly really isn't it?

What gets my goat is when people bring nationalism into the equation at all: I simply do not see why it should be an issue. Take, for example:


The recognition of a separate Irish cultural identity and the establishment of revolutionary 32- county socialist republic.

I'm all for the latter, but really: why bother mentioning the former? We all know that we are a product of our environment, and as such it doesn't even seem worth mentioning to me. Fighting for socialism is all well and good, but that statement says it all: Nationalism first, socialism second.

Simply put, saying a '32 county socialist republic' is definition enough. We in the rest of the UK have the same problem in that we are ruled by a capitalist government - being born and bred in Scotland I could argue that we have been supressed, and it would hold at least some weight - With this in mind I would defend Scottish socialism, British socialism, European socialism

The demographics do not concern me: The methodology is what matters. It is for this reason I remain skeptical about the IRSP, and in my own locality the SSP.


Given that there is right now direct rule from London, it doesn't matter what the Irish people vote for. Provisional Sinn Fein is now the third biggest party in Ireland - doens't change a damn thing.


It never changes a damn thing, which is why we need to change it. Most people here advocate democracy, so why not revolutionise the parliamentary system? Why break away from all the socialist throughout the UK fighting for socialism too?

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 10:04 AM
It never changes a damn thing, which is why we need to change it. Most people here advocate democracy, so why not revolutionise the parliamentary system? Why break away from all the socialist throughout the UK fighting for socialism too?
Because the Irish working class (especially in the six counties) live under a different system than the English working class, and indeed Scottish and Welsh workers too. The economic foundation may be the same, but the political superstructure of the state is very different.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 10:04 AM
Why break away from all the socialist throughout the UK fighting for socialism too?
DaCuBan, maybe you should spend more time supporting the expansion of US imperialism throughout the globe. That way, all the socialists of the world can fight for the same thing from under one regime. Yay!!!

[DaCuBaN]

maybe you should spend more time supporting the expansion of US imperialism throughout the globe. That way, all the socialists of the world can fight for the same thing from under one regime

The US do not yet (politically at least) own the world. Technically speaking, England Scotland Wales and N.Ireland are all owned by Westminster, and hence that is the common enemy. I simply don't see why we should bother with fighting for independance from England (and lets be honest - this is what it is in N.Ireland just as in Scotland and Wales) resulting in leaving our english comrades alone against a political body that hasn't lost any real power.

We're dumping a common problem on them and I can't abide that. In the end, I fear it comes down to thinking "I'm Irish", "I'm Scottish" and "They're English" instead of "We're Human" and trying to solve the problem. In other words, from my perspective it seems like sectarianism - yet I'm sure that's not the intent for many socialist in the movement.


The economic foundation may be the same [throughout the UK], but the political superstructure of the state is very different.

Indeed - the N.Ireland assembly was dispanded, but before that? We were all on an even keel(sp?) being ruled from Westminster. This hasn't fundamentally changed - so in effect I dispute this point, and I must ask:


why not revolutionise the parliamentary system? Why break away

We can be united as a socialist UK - does it really matter where the socialism originated if it truly is a step in the right direction?

[BOZG]

Just thought some of you might be interested in these photos that I took today. They're of the Special Branch, one of the 'undercover' wings of the Gardaí in Ireland keeping watch over some stalls, particularly of Republic Sinn Féin outside the General Post Office in Dublin.

[BOZG]

Another

[BOZG]

And one more.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:08 AM
That's not what a leftist would argue, and even from your POV that isn't a logical statement. Who cares what an gerry-mandered "majority" wants in a colony that has been in recent times ruled as a military state?

Given that there is right now direct rule from London, it doesn't matter what the Irish people vote for. Provisional Sinn Fein is now the third biggest party in Ireland - doens't change a damn thing.

As we say in the IRSP, 'there is no parliamentary road to socialism'.
That's not what a leftist would argue,

How would you know? Your a nationalist, which is certainly not a leftist view.

Who cares what an gerry-mandered "majority" wants in a colony that has been in recent times ruled as a military state?

You clearly fail to understand the nature of democracy, even the psuedo democracy of Britian.