Republican Socialism

[Just Joe]

what do you lads think of this party?

http://irsm.org/irsm.html

Irish Republicanism from a Marxist perspective.

[redstar2000]

Certainly appears to be "the real thing", JustJoe.

But, you know, combining a struggle for national liberation and a struggle for socialist revolution is "a very tricky maneuver"...the usual temptation is for such movements to veer more strongly in one direction than the other, usually the nationalist direction.

It would also be interesting to learn more about how they actually function...is there a lot of internal democracy or is it run by a few "great leader" wannabes.

I had the experience of looking into a socialist group in the U.S. a few months ago...which had excellent public positions on all the major questions. After considerable prowling through the website, I finally found that: the group had a national convention every two years which elected a national committee of 50 or so people which in turn elected a central committee of 5 or so people...those 5 people were the ones who really ran the show. Disappointing.

But I would certainly encourage you and other Irish comrades to check these folks out...they could be really great!

:cool:

PS: Note their pamphlet on women in Ireland. First-rate!!



(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:41 pm on Feb. 6, 2003)

[chamo]

This sounds like a great party. In case anyone didn't notice the starry plough is the same as CiaranB's avatar

[Conghaileach]

Redstar, while I share your anxiety about national liberation movements (despite being an ardent Republican Socialist I have at time questioned my position) almost every socialist struggle in the world has emerged from a national liberation struggle.

Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, currently in Nepal, etc etc

Some (Most) of these struggles fell to the wayside, but the record does indeed speak for itself.


(Russia and Nepal aren't strictly national liberation as in against an imperialist foe, but trying to liberate the nation from reactionary government.)

[Just Joe]

the reason i like IRSP is, while Sinn Fein isn't necessarily a sectarian party, IRSP is ANTI-sectarianism and activly recruits Protestants and does have some Protestant members.

redstar2000, IRSP are pretty much 50/50 when it comes to Republicanism and Socialism. when Sinn Fein talks about the economy, they use a Nationalist approach of "if we were independant from the UK....." but IRSP talks about Socialism over Capitalism. it also is ran by Marxists and Sinn Fein doesn't allow Marxists to join.

and for those who don't know, the IRSP is the political wing of the Irish National Liberation Army.

[Conghaileach]

The IRSP recently revealed a memorial plaque to one of their members, a Protestant called Noel Lyttle, whose father was one of Ian Paisley's top men.

More can be read about him here - http://irsm.org/fallen/lyttle/.


On Marxists in Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams once told a group of Americans at a fundraiser that there are no Marxists in Sinn Fein. This isn't true - I know a few members who are socialists. Why they're in Sinn Fein, now that's another question ;)

[redstar2000]

CiaranB, the point you raised really deserves a thread of its own...but here are some thoughts on the matter.

Looking back at 20th century communist parties and movements, I've noticed a funny pattern.

Communists were better reformists than the reformists, better trade unionists than the trade unionists, better civil rights fighters than the civil rights fighters, better civil libertarians than the civil libertarians, better at anti-war stuff than the pacifists...and, finally, of course, better national liberation fighters than the nationalists.

We communists were so damn good at all this stuff...the only thing we were pretty much no good at was fighting for communism...especially in the developed capitalist countries.

I'm sure it was not "all our fault"...there are doubtless objective material reasons for this happening.

But there was also clearly a subjective dynamic at work here, and I think it went something like this:

If we communists can show the masses how well we can fight for something they really want, then they will "trust" us and "follow" us to communism.

Well...um, no. It didn't, for the most part, turn out that way at all. Apparently, the "verdict of history" is that it is not possible for communists to win a kind of "easy" popularity by fighting for some popular cause and then "use" that "popularity" to advance to communist revolution.

China, Indochina, and Cuba seem to be the only exceptions to that...and Cuba, I would argue, is only a partial exception. The 26th of July Movement was mostly non-communist before 1959; the United States essentially pushed a "nationalist" government "into" the communist path. And, interestingly enough, in 1945 both Ho-chi-Minh and Mao made "friendly" overtures to the United States...which were rejected, of course.

So I look back on all this and it occurs to me: maybe communists are not "supposed" to be "popular" until people are ready for communist ideas. Maybe the role of being "the future of the movement" in the present is not one of "vanguard leadership" but rather the more "unpleasant" role of messenger with bad news--the "popular" demand of the moment will not emancipate the proletariat.

Perhaps we communists are not the "leaders" of the working class but rather the "big pain in the ass" that through chronic complaining and sharp criticism opens the eyes of the working class to the need to overthrow the capitalist system.

It's hard to figure out how to "glorify" or "romanticize" being an outstanding pain-in-the-ass. But maybe that is where our real tasks lie.

:cool:

[Just Joe]

the reason Communists have led left wing movements and recieved popular support is because most of the movements they've led have been clear cut. Marxists have for years been over-represented in Irish Republicanism. they've got there popular support through a simple message- Brits Out! same with the US or European labour movement. the message was a simple, we want more money! or we want civil rights! for the blacks in America. Communism has never been popular because its do damn complicated! the only places it has been popular is those places that are in such a shite state to begin with. if you commies delivered a simple message to the working people, maybe you'd have more sucess than writing 400 page books only readable to a well educated middle class student.

(Edited by Just Joe at 6:36 pm on Feb. 7, 2003)

[Geddan]

Workers are as intelligent as any other, not some mentally flawed critters. However, even the ordinary person might not show interest in reading Marx, therefore one might try to appeal to the masses by teaching the basics.

Here in Sweden the working class has always been very strong, however they are voting for the wrong party: The Social Democrats. They have had 70 years building socialism, and we have not seen it yet. The reforms go to slow, if a socialist government should be elected then it has to be quick (a parliament revolution). The reason I tell you this is that here in Sweden the extreme left could get very strong if someone tried to appeal to them (and made up with the past).

[Just Joe]

theres a difference between intelligence and academic intelligence. in my experiences of meeting people, ordinary working folk are just as intelligent if not more so than richer people and most tend to be more political. but while middle class people tend to be middle of the road, i don't care aslong as i stay fairly well off, people, they are usually more academic cause most of them went to uni. Marx, at heart was an academic and wrote his works for the man in the classroom not the man on the street. Engels was always more of a writer who you could relate too and a better overall writer i think.

[redstar2000]

JustJoe, I agree with you about Engels. But Marx did write two "popular" non-academic pamphlets: Value, Price and Profit and Wage Labour and Capital that are quite readable.

I also agree with you about working-class intelligence...in fact, I wonder if we communists did not, in the 20th century, "outsmart" ourselves by thinking that workers "weren't ready" for communist ideas so we had to go with ideas that people were already "comfortable" with.

It's all part of my "rant": communists should advocate communism first...and then talk about the other stuff.

:cool: