IRA

[Len]

What do you think about them? I support them. From what i've heard they have good ideas.

[Rapparee2]

Of course they do. Let me tell you a story about the Irish situation. When the Irish were fighting the British in the Anglo Irish War they came to a deal with the British Government that they would divide Ireland up or the fighting would resume and probably resulted in defeat of the Irish. It was blackmail. Some of the Irish saw this and split away to form waht we know as the IRA and the others formed what we know as Ireland today. Thus a bloody Civil war ensued. To close things up the IRA are the real true Irish cos they still beelive that Ireland is not free unlike others in the South who don't give a damn and are traitors to the name of Ireland. This is all very extreme but it is the truth.

[munkey soup]

The treaty signed by Michael Collins was necessary. The majority of the Irish people voted for it as well. de Valera knew the Brits weren't gonna give up Northern Ireland, thats why he sent Collins. Ask yourself why he didn't go in Collin's place? de Valera was twice the negotiator Collins could ever be, and yet he still sent Collins. What would have happened if the Irish went from the selective terrorism Collins introduced to full-scale pitched battle against the Brits? Remember, it was tried just a few years previous during the Easter Uprising, and what happened? The streets flowed with Irish revolutionaries' blood. Yes, it was a grand gesture, and when Connoly and Pearse and the others were executed, you could say the Irish woke from a state of melancholy, but it was a failure militarily. And then, 6 years later, imagine that massacre on a much grander scale. The Brits were no longer at war in Europe, they could pour as much military strength as they wanted into Ireland.

As for the contemporary IRA, I'm not too sure about them. If worst comes to worst, I'd support them. But I think that a lot of what has been going on up in the North is just tit-for-tat killings, with too many innocent lives lost. I would like to see a whole Ireland, but not if it means seeing so many innocents dead. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the IRA attack the headquarters of the socialist party in Ireland? I could be wrong, I'm not that well versed on contemporary Northern Ireland.

[MetalGus]

I have a right-winged ass friend (well he's not really MY friend) and he's psyched about Gerry Adams.

That fact got me pretty suspicious about Mr. Adams.

Anyway, he's coming next week in Canada to do some lectures and fund-raising. He's having a wine-n'-cheeze in Montréal for about 150$ a seat.

I mean, he doesn't want to educate all the people on the matter since he's targeting a middle-rich crowd.

I should dive more into this subject.

[tyronelad]

the IRA is like any other organisation- there is traditional grassroots and radicals, left and right wing. the current IRA (Provisionals) broke off from the mainstream republican movement in 1970, due to younger, more militant activists (McGuinness and Adams) not agreeing with the now socialist "all working class" leadership. This provisonal Group soon became the largest.
The IRA has its roots in extreme right wing nationalism- even today i know teenagers from hardcore republican areas who would jump you if you wore a poppy and are very racist (many are against foreigners coming into 'our' country).
SF are at loggerheads with the labour party in the republic (both claim to be the only real working class party in ireland) and often the IRA is used for means which hardly further a revolutionary cause (beating up bouncers at clubs for kicking republicans out is the latest). sinn fein preach socialist ideals in the republic, but while in power at stormont they did little to change the system (probably too happy with thier 24,000 a year!)

however, one should also look to the proud tradition of the IRA- many suffered a great deal at the hands of the british (internment, beatings, shoot to kill policies, collusion with loyalists, the hunger strikes). Gerry adams suffers from kidney problems from a time he received an awful beating from the RUC (in the 70s)

[Guardia Bolivariano]

I also suport them Ithink they have a great Ideology and deserve the suport of the world comunity because they are fighting agaisnt colonialism.But I don't find that the realIRA has the same principals.

[Bez]

What principles do you find they have?

[Som]

I wouldn't support any organization merely because they claim to be left-wing.

They're cause is nationalist, and fairly useless, as they kill innocent civilians.

The people of N. Ireland have a vote, they've voted, and innocent people have been killed over the petty cause of which government they put their votes into. Whether they send their votes to london or dublin is irrelevent. The IRA isn't doing anything productive, and about now its good theyre disbanding.

[BOZG]

Rapparee2,

Why the fuck do you have an anarchist symbol in your avatar if you support petty nationalist struggles like that in the north? Northern Ireland today is far different from the times of the 1910s IRA. Yes, there still is oppression in Northern Ireland against catholics but it is minor and can be changed without pointless wars.
If the north is reunited with the republic, what will that acheive? Absolutely nothing, nationalists in the north will gain some pride, people in the south will go down to the pub toasting the IRA claiming they always supported the cause etc but I doubt the loyalist paramilitaries are going to sit back and accept it and thus another war begins but from the opposite side. There will be no peace in northern Ireland unless the people are free to govern themselves but keep their economic ties and cultural ties with both the RoI and Britain.

[RGacky3]

I support the IRA, I think the UK has to stop being imperialistic. Thats what I think, I also think cheese is good.

[canikickit]

I agree with BOZG. It is true that the land was colonised and what not, but now a large proportion of the citizens are unionist, so it would be oppressive on them if it was ruled from Dublin.

Self government is the only real democratic solution.

I do not support the IRA if they continue to kill indiscriminatly (I don't know when the last time this happened was).

also like Tyronelad siad, it's split up all over the place.

[Libertarius]

Of course we all know that the Irish are the toughest fighters in the world... that's why the only fight EACHOTHER! LOL!

[IHP]

To all the nationalistic fuckers who have not experienced the shit that goes on over, shut the fuck up! you don't know how terrible it is. There are a few Irish people on this site that I know of, and would agree with me. I ESCAPED THE SHIT! ok?

all the violence and loss of good life is useless. The problem is, that its going to continue on, generation after generation will carry it on. The current generation were influenced by the prior generation, and so on. Dont support either side. its all to no end.

--IHP

[Conghaileach]

from canikickit:
I agree with BOZG. It is true that the land was colonised and what not, but now a large proportion of the citizens are unionist, so it would be oppressive on them if it was ruled from Dublin.

Actually, there are about 750,000 Unionists in Ireland, from a population of 5 million. The British government are the ones being oppressive by denying the will of the majority of the people of Ireland.

Also, while I'm not a hardcore supporter of the IRA, I must ask all of those who consider them a petty nationalist force - why is it that the IRA have sent troops all around the world to help and train the indiginous peoples in resisting reactionary governments, if they are little more than said petty nationalists?

[Reuben]

Regarding the posts of canicickit , it is important to remember that rue decocracy is not simply the imposition of the majority view but instead a system which takes into account the needs anwishes of all interest groups.

To simply give 'seelf government to northern ireland' would be undemocratic as it has an imposed protestant majority, it was cut up spefically to have the population ratios. Rather than being a democratic solution it would simply be the dictatorship of an imposed majority.

[Conghaileach]

Reuben is correct. This is why most Republicans refuse to accept Northern Ireland as a legitmite state. By most, I mean that under the terms of the GFA Sinn Fein accepted the legitimacy of the six counties regime.

Something that annoys me about this imposed majority in the six counties, is that most Nationalists believe that the idea of "breeding them out" is now the strategy to implement. Of course, if the Nationalists in the six counties do become a majority, it won't necessarily lead to a United Ireland.

[BOZG]

Catholics are actually a majority in Northern Ireland now though only slightly.



Also, while I'm not a hardcore supporter of the IRA, I must ask all of those who consider them a petty nationalist force - why is it that the IRA have sent troops all around the world to help and train the indiginous peoples in resisting reactionary governments, if they are little more than said petty nationalists?

Ah yes, betraying their principles of being anti-drugs by training a force of drug dealers and trading with our good friend Kadaffi (sp?).

[BOZG]

Yes maybe the British government is being oppressive but there's no need to murder civilians to point that out. It's a situation which can actually be done without violence. And besides even if the British were to consent to a United Ireland, the Irish government will not be happy as they more than likely will not be able to sustain the north.

[Conghaileach]

from BornOfZapatasGuns:
Ah yes, betraying their principles of being anti-drugs by training a force of drug dealers and trading with our good friend Kadaffi (sp?).

Actually, they never traded with Qadaffi - he gave them the weapons. And the FARC aren't drug dealers, they extort drug dealers. And aside from these two incidents, the IRA were involved with Palestine during the original Intifada, and in Beirut.

[BOZG]

Can you back up the extortion?

[Conghaileach]

Is that not correct? Almost every article I've read (mostly from last year) connecting the FARC to drug dealers said that the FARC made them them pay so that they could pass through FARC-controlled areas safely.

[BOZG]

Every article I've read claim they deal drugs to raise funds though I've read one article claiming they have nothing at all to do with drugs.

[Conghaileach]

Well, either way, if they are supposedly leftist then they shouldn't have any involvement in drugs whatsoever.

[canikickit]

I had a feeling I would be led to regret that post.

The "large proportion" is of the pop. of Northern Ireland, which is about 44% according to your figures, and somewhere else I got the total.

I don't have a fucking solution. It's fucked up. But I think Good Friday, at least was an improvement.

(Edited by canikickit at 2:16 am on Nov. 2, 2002)

[Conghaileach]

In what way? The GFA is a joke, it's an agreement that is no good for anyone except the middle/upper class. The working class are still suffering.

[peaccenicked]

There is the little matter of living in relative peace. It also
seems to me that the orangemen are gradually being dragged into a European united Ireland. This is one of the reasons, I support the Euro.

Working class unity in the six counties has always been conditioned by the national question. Many Socialists have assumed that only socialism could resolve it, to me it was putting the cart before the horse.
The conditions by which working class unity can be achieved are developing in the six counties.

The good Friday aggreement was not a revolution but it brought the class struggle into a new more realistic phase superceeding old bourgeois nationalist illusions and socialist wishful thinking.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:18 pm on Nov. 2, 2002)

[tyronelad]

orangemen is the south of ireland parade without incident- but then again down there they do not shout "up the UFF" and dance outside buildings where catholics were killed. the IRA trio in Columbia were probably their to test weapons and maybe get in on the drugs trade- the fact is one of them is a hardline Marxist (and was therefore not allowed to stand for elections under Sinn Fein) so few tears will be shed.

The IRA may probably have been more left wing (thier was links with soviet spys) but the large right wing irish american element (who the IRA depend upon for most of its guns/money) were very against it.

thier is even evidence to suggest that James Connolly (an internationalist socialist and leader of the Irish Citizens Army) was pressured into the Easter Rising by other republican leaders

[Menshevik]

I sympathize with the cause of the IRA, but I do not support the majority of their methods or actions. Attacking civilians indiscriminately is terrorism and nothing more, and I refuse to support terror.

[peaccenicked]

Tyronelad.
Connolly was indeed pressured but it was a bit like the pressure your girlfriend puts on you when she wants to have sex. There was some welcome there.

[Conghaileach]

Connolly believed he could use the rising to put forth the issue of the class struggle. It was Connolly who convinced Padraig Pearse to place in the Proclamation the line "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland..."

He didn't trust a lot of the other leaders of the rising though. Before the occupation of the GPO, Connolly told his ICA soldiers not to let go of their weapons, no matter what happens. Even if a republic was achieved, Connolly knew that there were be people opposed to the workers trying to rise.

[peaccenicked]

This commentary (http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/race/lenin_ireland.htm) sets the backgound nicely. Connoly was indeed caught at a point in history. It seems even an objective understanding of the possible pre mature nature of the rising was superceded by an understanding of what was needed to add significance to this act of supreme courage.

[Conghaileach]

Peace, thank you. I've been looking for Lenin's comments on 1916.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that Lenin's comment is silent on the crucial point: should communists take part in nationalist revolts and, if so, on what terms?

No one but an idiot would argue that communists should automatically CONDEMN any struggle that falls short of the "purity" of a laboratory version of "workers vs. capitalists".

I'm interested in and sympathetic to any form of resistance to the prevailing social order--even forms that are clearly reactionary...because today's reactionary MIGHT be tomorrow's revolutionary.

But I think it is a real mistake (read: HUGE FUCKUP) for communists to read more progressive content into non-communist struggles than is really there. In some countries it has been possible for communists to ride into power on a nationalist truck (lorry); the problem comes when you unload the cargo. Nationalism starts out by saying "we're just as good as the bastards who rule us" and ends up, when conditions permit, saying "we're BETTER and should RULE OTHERS". (The example of Serbia is instructive in this regard.)

I think when Marx and Engels said "workers of the WORLD, unite!" they knew what they were talking about.

[peaccenicked]

The point Lenin is making is that Marxists do not set the terms in the class struggle. We may take part in a movement which is ultimately betrayed by its leaders.
There are no guarantees, all we can do is give an analysis of the concrete situation.

[Conghaileach]

James Connolly (from an essay entitled 'Sinn Fein, Socialism and the Nation'):

Always presupposing that the rapprochement is desired between Sinn Feiners who sympathise with Socialism and not merely with those who see no further than "the Constitution of '82," on the one hand, and Socialists who realise that a Socialist movement must rest upon and draw its inspiration from the historical and actual conditions of the country in which it functions and not merely lose themselves in an abstract "internationalism" (which has no relation to the real internationalism of the Socialist movement), on the other.

[MEXCAN]

The Irish-Catholics are probably the most oppresed people in history!!!Shit if i would of been down there,i would be a PROVO today.The brits and the so called loyalists created the IRA not the catholics !!!!Check my POST (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=26&topic=141)

[munkey soup]

Excellent quote CiaranB.

[redstar2000]

Of course, we do not "set the terms of the class struggle." We DO however set the terms for OUR participation in any particular manifestation of it.

I repeat, Lenin evades the real question. SHOULD communists participate in national struggles and, if so, on what terms???

To imply that whatever happens we'll just jump in and tag along for the ride is as useless as saying we'll never participate in anything unless it's "perfect".

What principles guide us in making these choices, comrades, THAT is the question.

[peaccenicked]

Lenin does not answer your specific question but I would take guidance from this quote.
"The right of nations to self-determination means only the right to independence in a political sense, the right to free, political secession from the oppressing nation. Concretely, this political, democratic demand implies complete freedom to carry on agitation in favor of secession, and freedom to settle the question of secession by means of a referendum of the nation that desires to secede"

[nz revolution]

I heard the IRA sold out, and they gave uop their arms because Sinn Fein became just another capitalist party, shutting down hospitals and opening up more prisons.

The IRSP (Irsish Republican Socialist Party) would be a better choice. There armed wing is the INLA (irish national liberation army).

Sinn Feins roots were good. Kind of like the SWP in America, that went from a vanguard to a cult.

[Conghaileach]

Sinn Fein is a pretty messed up party. It has members from both the left and right wing, depending mainly on the area (in Belfast pretty much the entire membership is socialist, but in another area it could be made up of right-wingers). I think it's because Sinn Fein's never really had any policy beyond national independence.

As for the hospitals and prisons part, the Assembly's Health minister was a Sinn Feiner. However, she was forced to shut down a small number of hospitals. Sinn Fein had no say in opening/closing prisons.

I think that the worst thing Sinn Fein did was use PPP and PFI in the education and health systems. Both are forms of privatisation.

The party's done some good though, or tried to. In the free state, they joined the Green Party and Socialist Party in opposing the Nice treaty.

[Vladimir]

Well Irelands economy is already turning around, do we really want the North. Its a liability to the Brit gov with the money they pour into it for security and would give it back tomorrow if they had the chance. But its the loyalists in the North who want it kept as british control so id say a socialist party should govern Northern Ireland democratically then finally a united irish marxist commune.

IrishGuevara

[BOZG]

I heard the IRA sold out, and they gave uop their arms because Sinn Fein became just another capitalist party, shutting down hospitals and opening up more prisons.

No they gave up their arms to end the bloodshed.



There armed wing is the INLA (irish national liberation army).

There is much debate over the real ideals of the INLA. Any report I've ever heard about them has been to do with either kidnapping, drug dealing or protection rackets.

[redstar2000]

Maybe I can make my point in another way that will be clearer.

Imagine, you are an Irish "proto-communist" in 1915, a strong member of the Zimmerwald "left" (the initial formation that later evolved into the 3rd International).
You know armed rebellion against England is brewing (at that time, EVERYONE knew it was coming).

What do you do?

Some of those Irish nationalists are "socialist" or at least "pro-socialist". Many simply want the Brits out. Some, I don't know how many, were Catholic fanatics. Some want the English estates broken up and redistributed to the farmers and farm laborers.

Being a good Marxist, you already KNOW that the most probable outcome of the forthcoming rebellion (if successful) is the establishment of an Irish capitalist government...though socialists may have some influence on it. (If you're a really sophisticated Marxist, you know that English capitalism may well rule from behind the scenes...through local Irish intermedaries.)

So, what's your play? And WHY?

Do you explain what is really going on to the Irish working class? Do you tell them that they have MORE in common with English workers than they have in common with would-be Irish bosses and politicians? Do you warn them how little is actually going to change when the flag over Government House changes?

Or do you go for the easy popularity? Do you join in on all the nationalist cheering and, indeed, try to prove yourself an even better patriot than all the non-communist patriots? This is the road communist parties have been following since 1918 or thereabouts...and sometimes it really works; you win state power.

But winning it and keeping it have turned out to be two very different things. Presumably, we are not vulgar politicians seeking power for power's sake. But power won on a nationalist basis has NOT proven to be very useful when it comes to our real purpose: the emancipation of the working class. Indeed, it may prove to be just the opposite; nationalism poisons communism. You may choose one or the other, not both.

I'll concede that it is, for many, a tough choice. Communism was never an "easy" alternative and has often been, as it is now, extremely unpopular. Nationalism, on the other hand, is "natural", "everyone" pays it at least a grudging respect and many admire it. Nationalists are often persecuted horribly by an imperial power; but if and when they are victorious, they are celebrated by all...even their former enemies. The persecution of communists, on the other hand, "is only what those inhuman bastards have coming".

Lenin's abstract affirmation of the right to self-determination is as meaningless as Wilson's (who could be against it?). But it seems clear to me that the goal of COMMUNISTS is the self-determination of the INTERNATIONAL WORKING CLASS. Otherwise, what's the point?

[nz revolution]

No they gave up their arms to end the bloodshed.

Don't mean to be cheeky, but if you were fighting a war for liberation would you just give up? I cant imagine Che saying "Fidel, I think we should abandon the struggle, people are dying out there"

It was a good idea for the peace process, but they took it a bit to far, they made too many concessions, and are just another party.

RedStar, your post was excellent.

[tyronelad]

the IRA gave up the armed struggle as they coul;d take it no further- politics was the only way forward. instead of trying to overthorw the system work from within it.

The IRA realised no one really cared if they bombed belfast or killed a soldier- they had to resort to bombing the mainland, which took money, time, experience.

the loyalists were also killing a lot more nationalists (focusing on known republicans and thier family/friends) even to the point where the IRA seeked a 'no strike' policy with loyalists (they were told were to go)

The british were also becoming more effective- watch towers had been erected in the republican heartland of south armagh- many of which looked down upon suspected leaders of the IRA. The use of the SAS also uped the ante for volunteers to join.

[Conghaileach]

from tyronelad
the loyalists were also killing a lot more nationalists (focusing on known republicans and thier family/friends)

The loyalists only started killing "known Republicans" when they were receiving all of their information from the RUC and Special Branch. Even then, they were still murdering more innocent nationalists than "known Republicans" - but to a loyalist anyway, there's no such thing as an innocent nationalist.

[costello]

the IRA lost any right to call themselves republican the moment that they started going down the road that they currently are. when did it suddenly become acceptable to start administring the laws of our oppressors for them. they are nothing now but traitors and lackeys of the usa.

[Irish Republican]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:53 pm on Nov. 7, 2002
Some, I don't know how many, were Catholic fanatics.
This is untrue. I dont know of any Republican who is a 'Catholic fanatic'. The Catholic Church is, and always has been, anti-Republican. You would have a hard time even finding a Republican who goes to Mass.

[Just Joe]

IRA/Sinn Fein goals:

- withdrawal of British Troops from the 6 counties

- self determination for the Island of Ireland. almost 90% of those in the Free State support re-unification and the number is about 45% in the North (Protstants still the majority). that is an overwhelming YES on united Ireland.

-eventual goal is a unified, democratic, socialist republic of Ireland. the IRA's easter message last year was that it will never lay down its guns before this goal is achieved.

some of you lads need to get youre facts straight before you start making wild statements. kudos to CiaranB for being a voice of knowledge.

the war is not over. i, like everyone, wants peace, but Sinn Fein is now the most popular Nationalist (National Liberation-NOT Jingoism, commies) party and the DUP is gaining more ground on the Unionist side. can you really imagine a peaceful north with First Minister Paisley?

Ireland will be free from British rule. you cannot hold down the will of the people forever. Britain has tried and failed at it before.

[Doshka]

im new to this debate but i support the IRA..the IRA supported the Palestinians and still does...their cause is simmular to mine and i understand and sympathize..who wouldnt fight for thier rights after being descriminated against in thier own land? i think the active protestants in Ireland are bastards for doing what they're doing and they should be fought...the IRA are brave for their struggle...hasta la victoria siempre..viva la revolucion...

[chamo]

Doshka do you know what the IRA tactics are. Tactics of indiscriminate bombs and sectarian murders in cold blood. Sure, they are not as bad as what loyalists do and are far more disciplined but they still use some very bad tactics of killing innocent people.
Also I am a protestant, but I am also a nationalist, am I a bastard or are you just being a biggot? I practice the religion of protestatism but does that mean I am to blame for occupation of Northern Ireland whilst I am at the samw time trying to bring this country back to its people?

[Just Joe]

the IRA try to keep innocent casualties to a minimum unlike the death squads of the UDA who kill random, innocent Catholics.

the conflict should be Republican vs Loyalist, but we know it isn't just like that. it is split along religious lines even if it shouldn't be. i don't hold it against you that youre a Protastant and would welcome your support against British occupation and for Irish Republicanism. i don't think the same could be said if the roles were reversed and i (a Catholic) supported Unionism. i think that says a lot about the 2 sides, and who should recieve the support especially from the left wing.

(Edited by Just Joe at 7:22 pm on Feb. 3, 2003)

[chamo]

Just Joe thank you. I forgot to say that the loyalist parliamilitaries are far more viscious and indiscriminate in their tactics. They will shot at will on anyone whom they suspect may be catholic, if they live in a catholic area, have catholic friends or are even walking down a particular street. Murders such as that of Daniel McCoulghan, a postal worker shot near to me because he lived in a catholic area, and Gavin Brett, who was actually a protestant, yet he was shot because he was sitting near to a Gaelic football ground, and therefore assumed to be catholic.
Also the loyalist groups will run drugs, brothels and gambling as well as the arms trade. They often have feuds, just yesterday John Gregg, the local UDA leader was shot by Jonny Adair's men. Also their killings of catholics are based on pure sectarian hatred, and there are no reasons for them, nor are there any need.

If you were a Catholic Unionist I wouldn't think there would be too much chance of you acquiring any friends on the Protestant side of the fence. Most, well, working class protestants are fairly hard set in their views, it would be fine with any catholic community to accept a protestant into their area but not the other way around. You find catholics living in mainly protestant areas, but protestants will never move to a catholic area. I hate this kind of blind sectarian biggotry.