Anti IRA/William Wallace/ETA/ comments on this site

[CIRA]

After recently joining this site, I have been amazed at reading the postings of certain people, slating IRA/William Wallace/ETA, all of whom have either, fought, or continue to fight imperialism. When the very nature of this site is of revolution, commemorating one of the greatest ever revolutionaries.


God Bless Bobby Sands MP

[Just Joe]

well said.

[chamo]

I myself was amazed at those who shall remain nameless who still wanted to keep Northern Ireland in the union yet called themself an anti-imperialist.

[MEXCAN]

http://www.emory.edu/OXFORD/pierceprogram/Atlanta_Belfast/Sands_mural.jpg

(Edited by MEXCAN at 11:16 pm on Feb. 4, 2003)

[CIRA]

Mexcan, Thanks for that, a very nice touch and much appreciated!

[Son of Scargill]

What's with the William Wallace supporters club?I know it was a different era,but he wanted a Scottish monarchy rather than an English monarchy.I can sympathise with the sentiments of self rule,but he was hardly revolutionary.
I confess to knowing little of the CIRA's,or ETA's,social and economic plans,but would like enlightening,as I do believe that self determination is the first step on the road to socialist progress.

[bolshevik1917]

NATIONALISM AND SOCIALISM ARE INCOMPATABLE

INDIVIDUAL TERRORISM AND SOCIALISM ARE INCOMPATABLE

SOME RAPIST TWAT IN A KILT HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO FIGHTING TO BE KING OF SCOTLAND IS INCOMPATABLE WITH SOCIALISM

[CIRA]

Bolsh,

KickMcCann makes several intersting points on the "other William Wallace" thread, I suggest you go and take a look.

Good luck

[bolshevik1917]

I will, are you not willing to defend your terrorist organisations yourself though?

[oki]

how is the IRa anti-imperialist?it's a hyrarchic ,nationalistic army,religon based and fighting civilians.if they would get into power they would not end imperialism.maybe british,but that's no fight against imperialism in general,that's fighting your personal enemy.
w.w. was allso a nationalist,not a socialist.

[Just Joe]

you know fuck all about the IRA.

read your history and read about the IRA's principles. unitil then stop making wild comments.

[oki]

why don't you explane it to me?

[Just Joe]

you said the IRA was not anti-imperialist because it is only anti-British. the British are the imperialists in Ireland. thats why i say read yor history. breifly, Ireland was conquered by England and the English moved Protestants to the north to secure loyalty to the crown. then when Ireland finally wanted independance, the British partitioned Ireland into north and south putting about 40% of the people in the north into a state they didn't want to be in. the IRA fights for self determination of all the people of Ireland and does not recognise the illegal border.

they want to create a democratic socialist state and beleive in national liberation NOT jingoism.

i don't support sectarianism but neither does the VAST majority of the republican movement. including the IRA. sometimes innocents die in war and that should always be avoided if possible. but this is a war like any other. well it was. now we are trying to move towards peace. i'm personally not conviced but we'll see.

[bolshevik1917]

Oki is correct with his claims. Socialism is incompatable with religion, nationalism and acts of individual terrorism.

You say the "IRA fights for self determination of all the people of Ireland"

But what is 'self determination'? what about socialism? where is the class position here?

If you think killing workers because of their nationality or beleifs will get you anywhere you are doomed to failure forever.

[bolshevik1917]

A Marxist perspective on the IRA and the Irish situation

http://www.marxist.com/Europe/ira_decommis...ioning1001.html (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/ira_decommissioning1001.html)

[Just Joe]

god youre a loser.

how many times do i have to tell you that supporting national liberation is a MARXIST view.

the IRA's goal is a socialist republic. THAT is where the class position is. the support base for the IRA and other paramilitary organisations comes from the working class.

i've said before, Ireland is about anti-imperialism and struggle not about sectarianism. it is republicanism vs loyalism not catholic vs protestant. although obviously the support for the 2 ideologies seems to be split along religious lines. only a socialist republican movement can win at least a percentage of the protestant working class.

[oconner]

Quote: from Just Joe on 3:34 pm on Feb. 5, 2003

Ireland is about anti-imperialism and struggle not about sectarianism. it is republicanism vs loyalism not catholic vs protestant. although obviously the support for the 2 ideologies seems to be split along religious lines. only a socialist republican movement can win at least a percentage of the protestant working class.
I agree, you get catholics and protestants supporting both loyalist and republican causes and religion has very little to do with the violence. It actually says in the IRA manual that they define themselves as a socialist organisation and they want Ireland to be a socialist state.

[oki]

the ira does not intent to fight imperialism around the globe till the end of days and therefore is not an anti- imperialist army.it's an anti-british influence in ireland-army,or even an anti-protestant army.it's purely katholic.and therefore religous.the conflict is and has allways been a religous one.maybe not in their official declarations,but for the people it is.their tacktics include intimidation of civilians with bombscares and phisical violence.it's not a war where one army fights another.

all this doesn't mean that I don't support the cause by the way.the unionists are probebly even worse,and they have backup of a real militairy.it's the religous element that makes the conflict unsolveble.

[redstar2000]

I'm not sure who to pin the blame on here--Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky or perhaps someone else--but the idea that "national liberation movements" are "supposed" to be socialist or communist is wrong.

They are national--that means ALL classes in the oppressed nation (except the quislings) unite to drive out the imperial oppressor.

That doesn't mean that class struggle within the national liberation movement doesn't take place...but it's usually in the background or behind the scenes. The immediate and primary goal is to escape the clutches of the imperial power.

We who are citizens/residents of an imperial power have a different task--to oppose the imperial claims and schemes of our own country first and secondly of other imperial countries.

The proper time to criticize Irish nationalism is...when Irish Marines storm the beaches of Wales and the Irish Air Force carpet-bombs London. When Ireland becomes an imperial power (heh, heh), then is the time to really blast them...not now!

A Marxist should understand this. It is not the Irish or the Cubans or the Palestinians or the Kurds or the Basque or the Tamils or any of the "little peoples" who threaten this planet with centuries more of violence, terror, exploitation, etc. We know who the real bad guys are! The so-called great powers are the enemy...and the biggest enemy is the United States!

Frankly, I'm beginning to see an element of "bad faith" in the eagerness to criticize the nationalism of the oppressed countries. Yes, it's not socialist or communist; yes, nationalism and religion are reactionary; yes, their methods are sometimes distasteful, etc., etc. But, as they sometimes say in school, contrast and compare. Who are guilty of the small murders and WHO are guilty of the GREAT MURDERS? Who are guilty of the small robberies and WHO are guilty of decades and centuries of GREAT EXPLOITATIONS? Who has "bloody hands" and WHO HAS SHED OCEANS OF INNOCENT BLOOD?

The nationalisms (and, for that matter, the religions) that really "block" the progress of proletarian revolution are not those of the small, oppressed nations...it is the working class within the imperial power that is misguided and befuddled and stupified by the idea that "God" has "called" his/her country to "rule the world."

That is what should concern us communists...not whether or not the IRA (any faction) is "really socialist." They probably are not, in my opinion, but, so what? In simple justice, England has no right to rule a single square centimeter of Ireland...and that's what English communists ought to be saying!

Criticism of the IRA or the nationalist groups in other oppressed countries is...an evasion.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Just Joe on 3:34 pm on Feb. 5, 2003
god youre a loser.

how many times do i have to tell you that supporting national liberation is a MARXIST view.

the IRA's goal is a socialist republic. THAT is where the class position is. the support base for the IRA and other paramilitary organisations comes from the working class.

i've said before, Ireland is about anti-imperialism and struggle not about sectarianism. it is republicanism vs loyalism not catholic vs protestant. although obviously the support for the 2 ideologies seems to be split along religious lines. only a socialist republican movement can win at least a percentage of the protestant working class.


You are so dumb its unbelieveble. I HAVE TOLD YOU IN THE GENERAL ELECTION THE REPUBLICANS LOST!!!!! A general election is the democratic was of showing self determination.

Any way the IRA have infact delayed any shift to republicanism. You see if they had not deliberatly broken down negosiations many experts have predicted the uniting of Ireland any way.

You really are the most stubborn set of idiots to ever deny the simple truth. When you guys were stuck with no answer the only responce was from RS2000 who came out with crap about all capitalist elections being rigged. JUST Fuck off and accept the IRA arnt the noble set of freedom fighters you think.

[Just Joe]

let it go AK-47.

i've told you god knows how many times about WHY the elections in Northern Ireland do not matter. because the state is not legitamate. the only legitimacy is the Irish nation as a whole which fully supports re-unification (if you want to talk democracy, Fianna Fail are in power in the free state and there a Republican party). not only that, but Nationalist votes make up over 40% of the electorate with Unionists at 50%. there is a good chance Ireland may be re-united using Stormont elections because the Republican population is growing faster.

its clear you need to figure out your own political path. you don't understand how socialism works. its a set of beliefs. anti-imperialism is one of them. you support Britains imperialism in Ireland and even are against the Palestinians.

don't make youre internet tough man insults. just let it go.

[RedFear]

I live in england and i agree that we have no right to be in ireland. and if it was up to me i wouldnt be there, but i also will never agree with the killing of innocent people, which the IRA have been guilty of in the past.
I feel the same way towards mandela. While i totally agree with his course i strongly disagree with his methods. We lived in South Africa at the time, and he bombed a club my dad was 5 minutes from visiting.
I can promise you he has no ill feeling towards ANYONE and has brought me up in this way, yet he could have been killed regardless. Those methods will never be right, no matter how worthy and correct the caurse

[Invader Zim]

Joe you are determined to find a good side to a a bad organisation. You may hate the "British occupation" of N.Ireland, but that still does not give the IRA the right to kill innocent people.

[Just Joe]

killing innocents should always be avoided. i'll never support an attack that is designed to kill innocents because it only makes the cause look bad.

[bolshevik1917]

Read this http://www.marxist.com/Europe/Ireland.html

[Just Joe]

B1917, i think youre what Lenin called a 'left Communist'. you see everything in such narrow terms. the fact is, the Irish people don't want to be part of a federation with England and Scotland. every country has the right to self determination. the Irish people want to be an independant nation. you are no better than a colonialist or imperialist. you want to force your own Communist will on other nations. thats not what Socialism is about. Ireland deserves its own nation.

[bolshevik1917]

I think not Joe, I take it you are refering to the book 'left wing communism - an infantile disorder'? Very good book, I cant find any attacks on Marxism in it though!

[Just Joe]

i wasn't reffering to the book, but the ideology. the extremist element inside the Communist movement that is so far left they don't agree with any form of nationality and don't agree with a nations right to self determination. most Marxists including Che Guevara, Lenin and Marx himself agreed with self determination. excuse me for not wanting to be part of your world empire ruled by the imperial nations.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

I really respect William Wallace for what he really is not because I saw "braveheart".In my view the IRA is fighting imperialism not for marxism or socialism but for real independance the same WAY the colonies went to war agaisnt the UK.Just because they fight for nationalism and religin doesn't give us a rigtht to judge If they're right.The thing is they are fioghting and ocupation force, that alone is a reason startr an armed movement.I don't agree with the killing of innocents what's happening I think is that with all organizations sometimes they go out of line and become corrupt like in the FARC's and ELN's case.But this doesn't mean the entire IRA are a bounch of murderers saying this is like saying "all brits are imperialists and deserve to die".Finally betwen the UK's claims on N.I and the IRA's reasons for armed resistence I think any logical analysis will easily proove that the IRA has justice on It's side.

[mentalbunny]

On the subject of NI, I met a woman over the summer who has wokred in Westminster for many years, she was working there during the Faulklands and once in her office they were discussing it and apparently someone said "we should tell Argentina that they can keep the Faulklands, if they take Northern Ireland as well".

You see, the English in gneral don't want to keep NI, it's jsut the people there who want it to stay as part of Britina that are preventing the unification of Northern Ireland that the Republic of Ireland.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

And in the ETA's case we have tu understand that the basques have been fighting for selfdetermination since the roman invasion of Iberia.Their nationalist spirit was restablished wen Franco came to power and started to destroy the culture of all of Spain's communitys.The basque community sufered the most.Many nationalist were murdered ,tortured or put to jail.ETA was formed as a way to fight the fascist police the "GUARDIA CIVIL" and have vengeance onFranco himself.

Here again It's the case of hatred agaisnt hatred but If It wasn't for Franco ETA would have never have existed.
In prsent day Spain there is a saying "Not all basque natinalist suport ETA but al ETA menbers are basque natinalists"

WE MUST NEVER FORGET THAT THE BASQUES ARE FIGHTING AN EXTREME RIGHT WING GOVERMENT.

[Reuben]

This must be the most stupid topic I have ever seen. As socilaists, are we expected to have an uncritical approach to national liberation movements. I think not. We should look at what such movements offer to the working class and what they do not, and if they conform to narrow minded bourgoir nationalism.

We should also ask questions like 'Does the situation in the Basqu country justify how willing eta are to take the lives or civilians?' I am not suggestin g an answer but this is certainly a valid question to ask.

If Cira believes that we should uncritically suppot movements for national liberation then he/she is not a marxist

[Just Joe]

the Marxist viewpoint is to stand up to imperialism. when a larger nation denies the right of smaller nations to self determination, they automatically become imperialist nations.

you'd think also that a group whose final goal is a Socialist republic would get support from Marxists.

[Invader Zim]

Joe you do like saying the marxist approach to every thing i prefer the Chartist's approach to things.

[bolshevik1917]

Joe has no grasp of the Marxist method.

Marxists do not support individual nations whether they are 'imperialist nations' or 'oppressed nations' - both contain a working class - which we support - and a ruling class - which we attack.

The world is split up, not into nations - but into classes. Forget national bounderies - workers of the WORLD unite.

[Just Joe]

no Bolshy. in your mind the world is divided purely into classes, in your mind you are going to co-ordinate some worldwide war against the upper class. in the real world, nations exist because people want them too. people don't want to be ruled from a foreign country. thats colonialism mate, be it 'Bourgeios' or 'Prolaterian', its still colonialism.

Marx also stated that the working class OF imperial nations can never emancipate until imperialism ends and a position of equality is reached amongst the workers of the world. as it stands, the American worker is in a class above the Cambodian worker because of imperialism.

but....i'm not a Communist. i just thought most Communists would support national liberation because of anti-imperialism and the fact that national liberation and self determination were seen as so important to Marx, Lenin and Che Guevara. i guess theres no pleasing some [left] Communists.

(Edited by Just Joe at 7:14 pm on Feb. 10, 2003)

[bolshevik1917]

Many people want capitalism to exist so whats your point?

And your right in saying people dont want to be governed by a foreign country - I dont want to be governed by any country, the workers are capable of governing the world!

You sneer at my ideas as if they are utopian - im used to that, I get it from right wingers and defenders of capitalism every day.

Marxists support class war - not national war. I cant remember Marx going on about national liberation. Marx said that countries could decide under socialism whether they wanted to be 'independant' - but not under capitalism. Lenin was the same, as for Che I couldnt care less, I dont know much about him and im not a big fan of his.

[Reuben]

Have you ever heard of Critical support JJ.

My position on national liberation stems from that of the Jewish Workers Bund, who would fight oppression in eastern europe but remain constantly critical of the zionists, not only because their programme involved the oppression of others but because they saw the national liberation that zionism represented as divisive and a blind alley for workers.

The point is that oppressed elements within a society should build on the commonality of their struggles. It s my opinion tha the Catholic working class have alot more to gain from overthrowing th economic relations in their society than changing which bourogir society they are part of.

Furthermore, JJ i am not saying that marxists should not stand up to imperialism. However ou missed the point of my argument hih was that we should not remain uncritical of groups who are standing up to imperialism. Would you remain uncritical of the IRA in WW2 when they worked militarily with Nazi Germany?

[Just Joe]

B1917, theres no point in arguing with you. you've made up youre mind and would accept nothing more than a re-incarnation of Karl Marx telling you the cause for Irish National Liberation is a Socialist cause.

Reuben, the Jewish Workers Bund if i'm not mistaken was a National Liberation organisation. did they not want self determination for the Jewish people of Russia? considering the oppression Jewish people have had to suffer in Russia i don't think thats an un-reasonable demand. the reason they rejected Zionism was because it was based on one, non-class, grouping over the other; Jews over Muslims. I don't support a 'Catholic' Ireland or the rights of Catholics to rule over Protestants. very few do in Ireland. i support a secular, democratic, Socialist state free from imperialism. similar actually to my thoughts on Israel/Palestine.

i know not all anti-imperialist groups should be praised. but those anti-imperialist groups with a clear left wing, even Marxist agenda like PFLP, ETA, FARC and IRA/INLA should be seen as freedom fighters not reactionary Nationalists. thats what i'd like to see from Marxists.

[Reuben]

No JJ, like i said they rejected zionism not simply becasue it was oppressive to Muslims or palestinians but also from thir own Jewish work class perspective. They would never have used the phrase 'National Liberation' to describ their program. According to the Site 'Beyond the Pale' 'The Bund advocates national and cultural autonomy for the Jews, but not in the territorial sense; it argues for a middle course between assimilation and a territorial solution. The Bund also develops trade union activities and forms self-defense organizations against pogrom violence. In 1905, it has about 33,000 members. ' It wanted autonomy, it wanted the Yiddish language to be promoted yet it did not support the teritorial solutions favoured by Stalin to the Jewish question. It did not want to carve a jewish state out of the Russian empire even though there were areas with high concentrations of Jews.

The point is that they existed both to resist the specific oppression facing Jewish workers but also remained Affiliated to the Social SDmocratic party (this was the name of the original marxist party which split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) to work with others to bring about a socialist solution for all.

ANYWAY I agree it was a little simplistic to pigeon hole these groups as reactionary nationalists but like I said even if they do have a clear left wing agenda we reserve the right to remin critical of them. I do not believer that the extent to which the Bawsque people are oppressed justifies the slaughter of civilians by ETA.

[Just Joe]

pfft, whatever. most left wingers agree that when a larger nation subjects a smaller one to its will, thats imperialism and needs to be stopped. most Marxists even agree that the first step to working class emancipation for the working people of imperial nations lies in ending imperialism.

i'll just have to take it that you lot are in the minority on the left in your non-support of national liberation. i know a great piece by Marx where he says that if the people of Bavaria want to form there own socialist state, Communists should support there national liberation. how the situation in Ireland and for the Basques is different i don't know.

later.

[redstar2000]

This all is a "can of worms", isn't it?

Until such time as "workers of the world, unite!" becomes more than a long-range goal, what are we communists to do?

It's easy enough to dwell in a world of our own imagination in which things like nations and religions don't exist and formulate "brilliant" strategies that lead to quick and easy "victories".

Meanwhile, back in the muck of the real world, it's also easy to preserve our "moral purity" by denouncing anyone who uses tactics that we wouldn't use.

Ok, that's all nice, who cares?

Whether we like it or not, in the muck of the real world there is such a thing as imperialism--that has consequences for the working class both in the oppressed nation and in the imperial nation.

B1917, you, like me, live in an imperial nation. Much of the working class in our countries believes in the imperial mythology of our respective ruling classes--which always has the more "respectable" name of "patriotism" rather than the somewhat seedy and faintly criminal "nationalism".

These beliefs hurt our efforts to inspire/organize working class revolution. These beliefs must therefore be attacked by us as sharply as we can, in any way we can.

How does it help us to be diverted from our main objective into an endless controversey over the merits of some "national liberation movement"...the outcome of which we could have little or no effect on anyway?

Believe it or not, b1917, the IRA, ETA, etc. do not care what we think of their tactics, their strategies, or their goals. Nothing that we say means squat to them, be it praise or blame.

So what happens when we issue some statement denouncing the latest "outrage" of the IRA, etc.? It has no effect on the IRA at all. The workers who we reach with such a statement are apt to draw a different and perhaps unintended conclusion: the IRA is so bad that the presence of British troops is, somehow, justified.

And instead of combating the imperial mythology, we have paradoxically reinforced it.

You seem to have a "Marxist" formula in mind that goes something like this: 50% of our condemnation goes to the imperial ruling class and 50% of our condemnation goes to the emerging ruling class in the oppressed country that is a victim of our imperialism.

That's dumb.

What a real Marxist would offer should be something like: 99.99% of our condemnation is reserved for "our own" imperial ruling class; 0.01% can be spent on whatever criticisms might be appropriately directed towards some national liberation movement.

I can think of only one limited exception to this rule. Should you, a citizen of an imperial country, actually go to the oppressed country, learn the language fluently, immerse yourself in the details of the struggle in that country...and then go home and write a book about that particular national liberation movement. Then, criticize them all you want...at least there's some hope you'll know what you're talking about.

Glib, off-the-cuff condemnations of national liberation movements by the citizens of the imperial power, are hypocritical...and useless. The same goes for the use of Marxist slogans as if that was all you ever had to remember to be a "Marxist." There's a little more to it than that.

For example, from a class standpoint, is there really any point in being upset about the fact that while many of these movements call themselves socialist or even communist, the results when they come to power are...disappointing? In many (most?) of these situations, the oppressed countries are pre-capitalist...capitalism is what is supposed to come next!

This doesn't apply to the British-occupied zone in Ireland and also (probably) doesn't apply to the Basque areas in France and Spain...there's no reason in principle that national liberation in those places couldn't also have considerable socialist content. But it's not required. Imperialism hurts us--the communists within the imperial countries--regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the national liberation movements in the oppressed countries.

Take a "worst case" scenario. The Taliban are clearly some of the worst two-legged turds that foul the surface of the planet today. Suppose, in some fashion, they inflicted a series of humilating military defeats on the U.S. occupation forces, finally actually forcing the United States to flee from their country in total disarray?

This would be a temporary victory for reaction in Afghanistan...but a permanent and exhilarating defeat for imperial mythology among American workers.

Thus, it matters little to me at this point what kind of Ireland will emerge when the Union Jack comes down for the last time in Belfast and it should matter little to you, b1917...the important thing is that you will be able to tell English workers that all of the blood and treasure spent to hold on to a piece of imperial conquest was a criminal waste...performed solely for the prestige and profit of English capitalists.

And, you will be telling them the truth!

:cool:

[Just Joe]

great post redstar2000.

my final thoughts on this would be that i'd expect all leftists to stand against imperialism if not only for the fact that imperialism is a form of oppression.

the problem i'm seeing, is that some of you left commies don't seem to understand the programs of many freedom fighters. Hamas is anti-imperialist but they'd like to replace an oppressive Sharon with an oppressive Islamic republic. but ETA and the IRA want to end oppression and create Socialist states. maybe lads like B1917 should read the goals of ETA/IRA/PLFP first before denouncing them.

[bolshevik1917]

Im afraid my opinion stays the same, I keep my class position on this one.

BTW if you claim Ireland is an 'oppressed nation' shouldnt you say the same for Scotland? But your say I live in an 'imperialist nation'. Not that I really care, i'll leave all that national stuff to the lost souls of the SWP etc.

Again, you can claim that the IRA/ETA stands for freedom, you can tell me their final goal is socialism - but I can tell you now that they WILL NOT achieve it with their current methods and strategy!

People need to reject nationalism along with acts of individual terrorism and see that the only way to win the war against imperialism is by fighting for communism.

[Just Joe]

Scotland is a different situation than Ireland. i favour Scottish independance personally but that can easily be achieved through peaceful means (hopefully Irish re-unification can aswell, obviously).

if i were you, i'd support the Scottish Socialist Party. they seem genuine to me and popular too.

maybe ETA and the IRA will not achieve truly Socialist states. maybe thats because you lads in Scotland need to follow our example and create Socialism yourselves.

just as a question, do you agree with a nations right to self determination?

[bolshevik1917]

The SSP are a collection of bums and oddballs, none of them have jobs, they are pathetic pacifist 'moral' liberals with no understanding of theory whatsoever. The SSP will always remain an irrelivant sect who only surface on demos and elections.

A nations right to 'self determination' I beleive can only be acheived through socialism. If a nation is technically 'independant' under capitalism (eg we get our very own bourgeoise) then I see no change (the working class are still oppressed) and therfore wouldnt waste my time supporting it.

Independant Scotland, but why? why not independant working class?

[Just Joe]

yes youre right. socialism is the only thing that can bring about self determination. thats why i support socialism. so do the IRA. but when we have socialism, we have the right not to be ruled by London in some sort of federation of British Isles. that is the program of many far left Communist parties and its nothing but red imperialism.

i think youre feelings on SSP are harsh. they could gain up to 7 more seats next election so the're not a sect. what policies don't you agree with? they seem genuine democratic socialists.

[redstar2000]

B1917, you caught me out on a mistake...and I have to admit it. I thought you were English (like AK47), not Scottish. So much of my remarks that were addressed directly to you were wrong...and I apologize.

Besides, it gives me the chance to mouth off about "the other side" of the question; what about communists inside an oppressed country?

And this does apply to you, b1917, assuming you have not been so assimilated that you are now, for all practical purposes, "English" or "British." (Nothing "wrong" with that, mind you, as long as you don't identify with the British ruling class.)

Scotland was conquered by England...the Scotch people did not get up one morning and say...hey, let's unify with England.

Technically, that makes it an oppressed nation...unless you want to argue that the Scotch people generally have accepted assimilation into "Britain" and no longer really identify with Scotland as a nation...except in trivial ways. I don't know whether this has happened or not...I'm just trying to allow for the whole range of possibilities.

1. If there is a large working-class constituency for an independent Scotland, should communists support it? I think the answer is yes...with qualifications. We should support the most politically radical wing of the movement and try to encourage it to be even more radical than it already is. In particular, we should try to identify the elements of the Scotch population that act as surrogates for the imperial power...and attack them as capitalist quislings with all the venom we can muster.

2. But suppose the situation is otherwise; most of the Scottish working class couldn't care less about "nationhood"...they have identified with the imperial power in London, consider themselves "Britons", etc. Then the remarks I made in my last post apply: we call for straightforward opposition to English imperialism regardless of what the Irish do.

A communist in an oppressed nation faces tougher choices, in a way, than a communist in an imperial power. People around you are clamouring for national independence with little thought about what will happen after the old imperial flag comes down for the last time...and when you raise opposition to your newly emerging capitalist class, they will be double-quick to counter-attack you for "dividing the new nation in the face of the imperial enemy." That's why it's so important to nail those fuckers as quislings (most if not all of them are) before they get the chance to drape themselves in patriot robes and resume or even expand their plundering and exploitation on the day after independence...usually on behalf of corporations that are situated within the old imperial power itself.

Being a good communist is hard no matter where you live...but some places are harder than others.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:33 pm on Feb. 11, 2003)

[bolshevik1917]

The SSP will not gain 7 seats, they may gain a few more but its only a reactionary swing from the public. The changes inside the Labour Party are far more important, this is the party the socialists should (and will) be joining. Blair will not be defeated by sects like the SSP, he will only be defeated if we fight to hold on to our party.

www.scottishsocialistparty.org - have a look, find me one ounce of socialism here. Its all just reforms and bullshit. My critiscism is justified, I used to attend their meetings when I was younger, I hated the way they did everything and it nearly turned me off socialism (because they wouldnt tell me exactly what socialism was).

Redstar, there is a smallish case put forward for an independant capitalist Scotland by the SNP (www.snp.org.uk). And an independant socialist Scotland by the SSP. To tell the truth however people have more important things to think about, this cause never gathers a great deal of support.

The massive problem with this 'independant Scotland' theory is the trade unions. The trade unions are united in Britain - breaking this unity would be nothing short of a disaster!

As ive said before though, I find nationalism highly destructive.

[Reuben]

JJ even if NI was reunited how would that make it any closer to becoming a socialist state, given that the state with which it would be unjited is solidly bourgoir

[Reuben]

Anyway my own opinion on the IRA is the following.

I support their aims which involve not only ending the oppression of workers generally but the specific oppression suffered by Irish catholics.
I unconditionally support all Irish catholics of whatever class when faced with racism. The right to exist without racism is unconditional.

I do not believe that the level of oppression in NI in the 80s and 90s justified the willingness of the IRA to risk the lives of civlians. THis is a criticism of them.

According to my english teacher who is from an IRish catholic background the IRA do not have a particularly secularist programme for Ireland (i dont know if this is still true).

Both Britain and EIRE, who the IRA want to unite NI with are bourgoir states. WHile i disagree completely with the British occupation of NI, which has no legitimacy, i feel that in the current climate the Interests of ctholic workers could be best served by a unified class struggle in co-operation with the protestant working class. This is the area in which they have most to gain.

Historically, the IRA have demonstrated a somewhat reactionary mindset, IE their actions durring WW2. Now i recognize that their co-operation with the Nazis was not ideologically based, yet it is unquestionable that that organisations must take some moral responsibility for who hey choose to unite with.

[Just Joe]

the unified goal of the Republican movement is for the moment, Brits Out! its not about how life will be better, its about taking our country back. once thats done, then we can achieve Socialism. Capitalist united Ireland, followed by Socialist united Ireland. you can't seperate National Liberation from Socialism. the Irish free state will be re-structured once IRA/Sinn Fein achieve power. so it won't be 'bourgeois' anymore.

(Edited by Just Joe at 4:38 pm on Feb. 12, 2003)

[redstar2000]

What happens when Ireland is reunified is that "the national question" is now off the table.

And, if there is an active communist movement there, the class question is on the table.

I'm oversimplyfying, of course...things are more complicated than that. I'm reasonably certain--though I have no details--that there is class struggle within the IRA and similar groups even as we speak.

And a reunified Ireland will have the usual over-supply of "patriots" who will say or do anything to prevent the question of working class power being raised or discussed.

National liberation performs two difficult but useful tasks: it attacks the imperial mythology in the oppressing country...freeing up energies to attack the exploitation of the working class; and it also frees communists in the new country from the burden of nationalism, allowing them the freedom to openly fight for communist revolution.

It's almost a no-brainer...whenever a national liberation struggle wins, it improves the situation for communists in both countries. The improvement may be small or large...but I can't see how anybody we care about could get hurt.

:cool:

[Just Joe]

class struggle would be complete with national liberation.

if Sinn Fien took power, the re-unification of Ireland would mean a new state, not just the north being swallowed up by the free state. it would be a new state with more democracy and Sinn Fein would take us gradually into Socialism.

there will be no need for 2 revolutions; a national one and a Socialist one. the national struggle is also the class struggle. the major supporters of Republicanism are the working people not the big capitalists. they are and always have been in league with the British ruling class. they have as much to lose as anyone with the prospect of a unified Socialist Ireland.

(Edited by Just Joe at 5:04 pm on Feb. 12, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Just Joe on 4:38 pm on Feb. 12, 2003
the unified goal of the Republican movement is for the moment, Brits Out! its not about how life will be better, its about taking our country back. once thats done, then we can achieve Socialism. Capitalist united Ireland, followed by Socialist united Ireland. you can't seperate National Liberation from Socialism. the Irish free state will be re-structured once IRA/Sinn Fein achieve power. so it won't be 'bourgeois' anymore.

(Edited by Just Joe at 4:38 pm on Feb. 12, 2003)


The IRA are not a left wing group, they are a right wing group of neo nationalist terrorists. So even if they do succeed in massakering the Northen Irish protestants which was their aim until v reasently, it would not achive socialism.

[Just Joe]

where d'you get youre IRA ideology from AK? Sinn Fein is political IRA and they are a left wing party. but you knew that, right?

most Irish Republicans are not interested in sectarianism or petty nationalism. you only see what the Telegraph and the BBC tell you so i don't blame you personally for knowing fuck all.

when an organisations goal is to create a Socialist state, most people would consider them left wing. especially with the recent co-operation with Marxist rebels in Colombia.

[Vladimir]

''Marxist rebels in Colombia.''

What? There are no marxist rebels in Columbia, a group called Farc i think , but surely your not talking about them. They are only drug dealers with weapons struggling to gain power, while killing many innocent people during the process, they are not marxist revolutionaries

IrishGuevara

[oki]

no they're not but they do call themselves marxist.

[tyronelad]

i have lived in northern ireland all my life. in my area- the omagh district- there is a large republican community (omagh was the first area to have a SF controlled council) although omagh itself would not be a hardcore republican area (70% of omagh towns' popluation is catholic, there is a large army baracks (and always has been) and after the 1999 bombing you can hardly balem all omagh people for being anti-extreme republicanism)
the rural republican community in the omagh district is hardlydriven by a socialist ideology- most make money, are extremely nationalistic, anti-British (most refuse to accept the GAA has football clubs in the USA and the UK, calling them traitors!?!) sinn fein has done little for the town in terms of improving socailist conditions- bar investing in their own rural republican areas.

Sinn fein states it is socialist, aiming for a 32 county irish republic. the PUP and LPRG also state they are socialist... so did the Nazis and Mussolini. Sinn Fein voted with other 'middle class' parties in stormont to reduce spending on improving social conditions in certain regions. Gerry and Martin are capable, intelligent men, but in order to keep republican support they had to accept former prisoners and those from republican families (most are hardly the brightest bulbs in the box).

the IRA make money for themeselves- smuggling, robbery, counterfeit goods- that money hardcly goes to community centres or social projects- but into thier hip pocket.
JJ- you stated that SF are the political wing of the IRA- they deny this (and always have). Either you have ur facts wrong or SF is afraid to openly admit what it represents and supports. gerry wears armani suits, flys all over the world for support (to america- the mother of capitalism).

finally, the catholic population is growing a lot slower than republicans like to admit- even at that, who says those catholics would vote for a united ireland- i personally don't care- things will hardly change (although loyalists will go on a killing spree). who is to say the free state will want the north? most in the fre state are too busy making money- all they hear about is killings, feuds, drugs and political instability- most are sick to the teeth of the north (and could you blame them) the south is ecomincally booming. mainly thanks to american multi-national investment, and the south plays a major role in electronics production for missiles and other military items.

you think if SF were to ever come to power promising to remove all these aspects? you think SF will try to radically reform the country when they could be sitting on their big salaries, reeping the benfits of a stable country.

Grow up- SF use that socialist propaganda to get a foothold in the souths electorate- they make money from US companies at gala dinners for godsake- you want a nationalistic, power hungry party, vote SF, if you want a real socialist group, for whom the working class comes first, try the socialist party

[Just Joe]

i have lived in northern ireland all my life. in my area- the omagh district- there is a large republican community (omagh was the first area to have a SF controlled council) although omagh itself would not be a hardcore republican area (70% of omagh towns' popluation is catholic, there is a large army baracks (and always has been) and after the 1999 bombing you can hardly balem all omagh people for being anti-extreme republicanism)

are you personally Republican or Unionist? what about religion? catholic or protestant? oh and the Real IRA bomb in Omagh was a disgrace. even most hardliners admit that.

the rural republican community in the omagh district is hardlydriven by a socialist ideology- most make money, are extremely nationalistic, anti-British (most refuse to accept the GAA has football clubs in the USA and the UK, calling them traitors!?!) sinn fein has done little for the town in terms of improving socailist conditions- bar investing in their own rural republican areas.

rural people have always been more right wing. i know Sinn Fein hasn't improved the situation in terms of Socialism but they are not in power nationally. not in full power anyway.

the IRA make money for themeselves- smuggling, robbery, counterfeit goods- that money hardcly goes to community centres or social projects- but into thier hip pocket.

noone really knows that for sure, TL. there are bad apples everywhere. its the cause i agree with. a lot of the methods are inexcusable.

JJ- you stated that SF are the political wing of the IRA- they deny this (and always have). Either you have ur facts wrong or SF is afraid to openly admit what it represents and supports. gerry wears armani suits, flys all over the world for support (to america- the mother of capitalism).

the links are there for all to see. Sinn Fein isn't directly a mouthpiece for the IRA, but the links are very strong. i don't represent Sinn Fein by the way, and don't have links with any ranking members.

finally, the catholic population is growing a lot slower than republicans like to admit-

the old, 'breed them out' argument holds no credibility to any serious Republican. Protesants have as much a part to play in Ireland as anyone.

even at that, who says those catholics would vote for a united ireland

look at the voting stats. SDLP and Sinn Fein pull in the same percentage of votes as the percentage of Catholics in the 6 counties. Catholics want a united Ireland. we just need to get some Protestants on our side aswell.

i personally don't care- things will hardly change (although loyalists will go on a killing spree).

things won't change? how about we will have our land back for ourselves. some things are more important than money and material living standard.

who is to say the free state will want the north?

the last poll suggests 85% want the north.

most in the fre state are too busy making money- all they hear about is killings, feuds, drugs and political instability- most are sick to the teeth of the north (and could you blame them)

thats a false generalisation. i admit most are, as BOZG said, "arm chair nationalists" but youre painting a bleak picture.

mainly thanks to american multi-national investment, and the south plays a major role in electronics production for missiles and other military items.

capitalism cannot sustain. the re-unification of Ireland is literally decades away. the free states economy will go through many slumps and highs until then.

Grow up- SF use that socialist propaganda to get a foothold in the souths electorate- they make money from US companies at gala dinners for godsake- you want a nationalistic, power hungry party, vote SF, if you want a real socialist group, for whom the working class comes first, try the socialist party

i'm actually in the process of looking into the Irish Republican Socialist Party. but until another large, left wing Republican party comes along, i won't knock Sinn Fein.

(Edited by Just Joe at 8:06 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)

[pastradamus]

The IRA never had any beef with protestants.
English propaganda make it out to be a big war between catholics & protestants....Its not.
Thousands of protestants have died for a united Ireland,Including the great Wolfe tone.Catholics could well be the enemy of the IRA in some circumstances.
IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH RELIGION.


As for FARC,they are complete idiots,since the funds dried up from Moscow,they resort to Coruption.

ELN I can respect,they didnt go down that road as FARC did.