Irish republicanism

[Xiao Banfa]

Personally my sympathies lie with the republican movement over the loyalist movement, however the situation (to my limited knowledge) seems so intractable.

It seems ,due to the composition of N. Ireland (roughly 50% loyalists and 50% republicans), that maybe such a divisive issue should be shelved.

It's unlikely that a socialist, republican Ireland will eventuate and that it would be more likely (if Ireland were to unite) that capitalism would continue.

Personally, I am dead against loyalism- this is more a question of choosing your battles.

[Xiao Banfa]

Just bringing the thread to the top so the comrades can see it.

[Whitten]

I have no objections to a N Ireland Republic, or reunification, but your not going to find me symphasising with the IRA.

[guydebordisdead]

The problem with Northern Ireland is the false solutions being offered by armed nationalist groups claiming to be socialists.

The INLA for example have killed more working class people than "imperialist" soldiers. Their strategy is for national liberation and then socialism, a socialism which would be pretty bleak under those thugs.

Supporting the catholic working class (republicans) over the protestant working class is a trap a lot of socialists fall into these days. In the 60's-70's the republicans were massively repressed and the working had to organise to defend itself but now all we have is a situation where the working class is split on religious and irrational nationalist lines. The only way forward now is to unite across the divide and smash both states north and south.

"If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle., unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”.
- James Connolly

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

there are two streams with the irish republican movement

there's sort of the socialist stream
and the paint it all green and kick any foreigners out current

I have a lot of sympathies with the idea of independence/reunification, I've heard many older republicans say if they're not going to bring socialist with independence then there is no point in having independence.

But the inherantly racist republicans/nationalists make me want to be sick ("I'd rather be a paki than a hun" springs to mind)

[elmo sez]

"I'd rather be a paki than a hun"

what the hell does that mean ?

[rebelworker]

There was some unity among Catholic and Protestant workers around the recent postal strike in Belfast. An interesting development to say the least.

I have friends in west Belfast who are abviously comming from a republican background (one still regularly hangs out in Galic language clubs) but are trying to push a more "class unity" line at pickets and demos.

Its a heated debate between anarchists in the North and south, where the southerners seem to more strongly push for re unification. This may have alot to do with personal backgrounds, but I think its a very practical stand for northerners who are looking to win strikes and other campaigns requireing more working class unity.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by elmo [email protected] 4 2006, 02:20 PM

"I'd rather be a paki than a hun"

what the hell does that mean ?
It means 'I would rather be a Pakistani than a Protestant'. It's a sectarian song.

I disagree with Kevis on the issue of Irish 'racism', or national chauvanism, which has no real basis. There is certainly no 'officially' racist stance within Irish Nationalism (which claims to identify with all oppressed peoples of the world) though it does have it's reactionary elements.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Racism in Northern Ireland certainly appears more prevalent amongst loyalists. The BNP were considering fielding candidates in NI election and had they, most of their support would come from loyalist areas. Individual current and former UDA members have NF links.

[More Fire for the People]

I whole heartedly support Irish republicanism. It's something that even though I may not be knowledgable about strikes home to me. My dad's parents were Irish and half-Irish and their parents had emigrated to America to escape the famine. The only thing I oppose about the Irish republican movement is that some groups have resorted to terrorism. I also thing that an Irish republican movement would be a breeding ground for workers’ councils and other workers organisations.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 4 2006, 03:02 PM
Racism in Northern Ireland certainly appears more prevalent amongst loyalists. The BNP were considering fielding candidates in NI election and had they, most of their support would come from loyalist areas. Individual current and former UDA members have NF links.
Ofcourse most of their support would have come from loyalists, the seperatists would hardly vote for a "British Nationalist Party" would they. Irish Nationalists on the other hand...

[Sir Aunty Christ]

The point I was trying to make was that racism in Northern Ireland seems to exist more acutely on the loyalist side.

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 4 2006, 06:20 PM
The point I was trying to make was that racism in Northern Ireland seems to exist more acutely on the loyalist side.
And they eat babies too.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by guydebordisdead+Sep 4 2006, 07:20 PM--> (guydebordisdead @ Sep 4 2006, 07:20 PM)
Sir Aunty [email protected] 4 2006, 06:20 PM
The point I was trying to make was that racism in Northern Ireland seems to exist more acutely on the loyalist side.
And they eat babies too. [/b]
I doubt that.

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 4 2006, 05:40 PM
I whole heartedly support Irish republicanism. It's something that even though I may not be knowledgable about strikes home to me. My dad's parents were Irish and half-Irish and their parents had emigrated to America to escape the famine. The only thing I oppose about the Irish republican movement is that some groups have resorted to terrorism. I also thing that an Irish republican movement would be a breeding ground for workers’ councils and other workers organisations.
Your lack of knowledge about the situation is embarrassing. There have been no irish republican groups without an armed wing ever. Your parents being irish doesnt give you any special right to support irrational politics you don't even understand, I live 2 hours drive from belfast and even I'm fairly removed from the situation.

How exactly do you think an Irish republic would be a breeding ground for workers councils? Is the french republic a breeding ground for them? A 32 county bourgeois capitalist state is what they're fighting for and telling everyone else "dont worry about socialism until after". I dont give a fuck if its an irish of british face oppressing me they all have to go.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by guydebordisdead+Sep 4 2006, 06:20 PM--> (guydebordisdead @ Sep 4 2006, 06:20 PM)
Sir Aunty [email protected] 4 2006, 06:20 PM
The point I was trying to make was that racism in Northern Ireland seems to exist more acutely on the loyalist side.
And they eat babies too. [/b]
WTF? Auntie Christ is from a loyalist area, I think he's trustworthy. Organised racism is more prevalent in Protestant areas, it's a fact, possibly due to the reactionary beliefs of Loyalist groups that are based in these areas

If you think Sinn Féin or any of the other nationalists are racists you are misguided, their rank-and-file in particular would be heavily involved in pro-ethnic minority organisations and carry a strong Internationalist current.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by guydebordisdead+Sep 4 2006, 06:25 PM--> (guydebordisdead @ Sep 4 2006, 06:25 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 4 2006, 05:40 PM
I whole heartedly support Irish republicanism. It's something that even though I may not be knowledgable about strikes home to me. My dad's parents were Irish and half-Irish and their parents had emigrated to America to escape the famine. The only thing I oppose about the Irish republican movement is that some groups have resorted to terrorism. I also thing that an Irish republican movement would be a breeding ground for workers’ councils and other workers organisations.
Your lack of knowledge about the situation is embarrassing. There have been no irish republican groups without an armed wing ever. Your parents being irish doesnt give you any special right to support irrational politics you don't even understand, I live 2 hours drive from belfast and even I'm fairly removed from the situation.

How exactly do you think an Irish republic would be a breeding ground for workers councils? Is the french republic a breeding ground for them? A 32 county bourgeois capitalist state is what they're fighting for and telling everyone else "dont worry about socialism until after". I dont give a fuck if its an irish of british face oppressing me they all have to go. [/b]
Yeah you can second me on that except slightly less vitriolic.

How pro-beurgeois Nationalist groups get their dollars is by duping semi-aware Irish-Americans like yourself into funding their 'anti-Imperialism' (read: election campaigns) with grand talk of a 'United democraticsocialist Ireland'.

[More Fire for the People]

Your lack of knowledge about the situation is embarrassing. There have been no irish republican groups without an armed wing ever. Your parents being irish doesnt give you any special right to support irrational politics you don't even understand, I live 2 hours drive from belfast and even I'm fairly removed from the situation.
I support armed wings. I said I opposed terrorist — people who attack workers. I don't see how national liberation is irrational, except for a fucker who wants to suck British dick, which seems quite the case. My father was three-fourths Irish , dumbass. Read the fucking post. Or is your British flag covering your eyes?


How exactly do you think an Irish republic would be a breeding ground for workers councils?
Progressive national liberation movements have always been a breeding ground for workers’ councils. What do you think the Bolivarian circles are? Or the CDRs?


Is the french republic a breeding ground for them?
Yes. Ever here of the Paris Commune? Now fuck off and fondle yourself to The Platform and photos of the Queen of England.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Permanent Revolution said:


Yeah you can second me on that except slightly less vitriolic.

How pro-beurgeois Nationalist groups get their dollars is by duping semi-aware Irish-Americans like yourself into funding their 'anti-Imperialism' (read: election campaigns) with grand talk of a 'United democraticsocialist Ireland'.

'Cept that yer man's profile says he's from Dublin. :huh:

As far as I'm concerned socialism and a united Ireland should develop parallel to each other. "Socialism first" won't work if the border's still in place and a "unity first" approach won't work at all if we're to acheive socialism.

[More Fire for the People]

As far as I'm concerned socialism and a united Ireland should develop parallel to each other. Socialism first won't work if the border's still in place and a unity first approach won't work at all.
Indeed. The only real revolutionary national liberaiton movement will develop a socialist movement as well, regardless of whether it intends to or not.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 4 2006, 07:43 PM

As far as I'm concerned socialism and a united Ireland should develop parallel to each other. Socialism first won't work if the border's still in place and a unity first approach won't work at all.
Indeed. The only real revolutionary national liberaiton movement will develop a socialist movement as well, regardless of whether it intends to or not.
Sorry I edited my post a bit after this post Hopscotch.

[The Grey Blur]

'Cept that yer man's profile says he's from Dublin. :huh:
Sorry I should've made it clearer but I was addressing Hopscotch Anthill

[Just Dave]

I support Irish Republicanism without supporting the IRA, they were good in the past but I think they're just to corrupt to be effective now. Still I'd take the IRA over the UVF any day, lots of the loyalist groups have connections not just to the BNP and NF but combat 18 as well.

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by Just [email protected] 4 2006, 07:20 PM
I support Irish Republicanism without supporting the IRA, they were good in the past but I think they're just to corrupt to be effective now. Still I'd take the IRA over the UVF any day, lots of the loyalist groups have connections not just to the BNP and NF but combat 18 as well.
Which IRA? The provos are no more. The officials are long gone. The CIRA and RIRA are both scumbags who have indiscriminately murdered working class people.

People should really learn something about the struggles they suppose to support before talking crap.

Sinn Fein are a bourgeois nationalist group whose socialism is very similar to the socialism of the Labour party. It's leaders have met with George Bush several times.

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 4 2006, 06:38 PM
My father was three-fourths Irish , dumbass. Read the fucking post. Or is your British flag covering your eyes?
My grandfather served in the IRA and I live in Dublin there's no flag covering my anything. Your just a plastic paddy who in a desperate attempt to attach himself onto some oppressed group supports the struggle up north without having a clue about the situation.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 4 2006, 05:40 PM
The only thing I oppose about the Irish republican movement is that some groups have resorted to terrorism.
How do you define terrorism? I've heard different definitions, which is why I'm curious.


I also thing that an Irish republican movement would be a breeding ground for workers’ councils and other workers organisations.

Yeah, Free Derry has often been compared favourably to a commune, and actually functioned similarly to a workers' council.

Here'sa book on the 'forgotten revolution', the Limerick Soviet that you might find interesting. (http://www.limericksoviet.com/)

Sir Aunty Christ:

As far as I'm concerned socialism and a united Ireland should develop parallel to each other. "Socialism first" won't work if the border's still in place and a "unity first" approach won't work at all if we're to acheive socialism.

Well said, I agree a chara.


Your lack of knowledge about the situation is embarrassing. There have been no irish republican groups without an armed wing ever.

ever? :huh:

here's two contemporary Irish Republican groups without armed wings, mucker:

www.cgrp.info

www.newrepublicanforum.ie/

I know leading members of both groups personally and have worked with em and it's well known they've no armed wing - I've never even heard suggestions otherwise.

In the 1930's there was also the Republican Congress which I don't believe had an armed wing, though I'm not 100% sure.

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:07 PM
ever? :huh:

here's two contemporary Irish Republican groups without armed wings, mucker:

www.cgrp.info

www.newrepublicanforum.ie/
They're not political groups, they're websites.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:29 AM
The INLA for example have killed more working class people than "imperialist" soldiers.
No... not even close.

According to this wiki entry, the INLA killed 42 civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Liberation_Army) and counting security forces killed 113 total. Whereas the Brits killed 178 civilians between 1969 - 1989, according to this source. (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/bodbol.htm) I don't have any breakdown of stats for class, but most victims would've been working class, and this demonstrates the Brits outkilled the INLA many times over.


Their strategy is for national liberation and then socialism, a socialism which would be pretty bleak under those thugs.

The IRSP/INLA have always said they can't create a socialist republic, that this is the task of the working class and they can only help.

Also, you misrepresented the IRSP program- it's for national liberation and socialism together, seeing the anti-imperialist struggle as just one part of the class war. That quote you posted from Connolly is the same as the IRSM position, in fact the source of the IRSM's position - the exact one you're so against. :blink:

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by guydebordisdead+Sep 4 2006, 09:09 PM--> (guydebordisdead @ Sep 4 2006, 09:09 PM)
PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:07 PM
ever? :huh:

here's two contemporary Irish Republican groups without armed wings, mucker:

www.cgrp.info

www.newrepublicanforum.ie/
They're not political groups, they're websites. [/b]
Those are the websites of the Concerned Group for Republican Prisoners, they have photos of their members peacefully protesting the Love Ulster rally, so they're certainly political. The other site is of the New Republican Forum which is also politically active on prisoner issues, antiwar activism and so on.

[More Fire for the People]

How do you define terrorism? I've heard different definitions, which is why I'm curious.
Attacks on working people. The Omagh bombing comes to mind.

[Xiao Banfa]

The question still hasn't been answered.

Why support republicanism when it divides the working class?

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+Sep 4 2006, 09:23 PM--> (PRC-UTE @ Sep 4 2006, 09:23 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:09 PM

PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:07 PM
ever? :huh:

here's two contemporary Irish Republican groups without armed wings, mucker:

www.cgrp.info

www.newrepublicanforum.ie/
They're not political groups, they're websites.
Those are the websites of the Concerned Group for Republican Prisoners, they have photos of their members peacefully protesting the Love Ulster rally, so they're certainly political. The other site is of the New Republican Forum which is also politically active on prisoner issues, antiwar activism and so on. [/b]
They're not a massive part of the irish republican tradition, theyre small activist groups but not political partys/movements.

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+Sep 4 2006, 09:22 PM--> (PRC-UTE @ Sep 4 2006, 09:22 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 11:29 AM
The INLA for example have killed more working class people than "imperialist" soldiers.
No... not even close.

According to this wiki entry, the INLA killed 42 civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Liberation_Army) and counting security forces killed 113 total. Whereas the Brits killed 178 civilians between 1969 - 1989, according to this source. (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/bodbol.htm) I don't have any breakdown of stats for class, but most victims would've been working class, and this demonstrates the Brits outkilled the INLA many times over.


Their strategy is for national liberation and then socialism, a socialism which would be pretty bleak under those thugs.

The IRSP/INLA have always said they can't create a socialist republic, that this is the task of the working class and they can only help.

Also, you misrepresented the IRSP program- it's for national liberation and socialism together, seeing the anti-imperialist struggle as just one part of the class war. That quote you posted from Connolly is the same as the IRSM position, in fact the source of the IRSM's position - the exact one you're so against. :blink: [/b]
You misunderstand.

I said the INLA have shot more working class people than they have shot imperialist troops.

There's a dentist with no fingers who'll tell you all about what kind of socialism the IRSM stands for.

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 4 2006, 10:55 PM
The question still hasn't been answered.

Why support republicanism when it divides the working class?
Because some socialists have an irrational attraction to guns and false dichotomies. Support republicans and palestinians everyone on the other side is complicit, it's not very materialist.

[Redmau5]

The provos are no more.

The Provisional IRA still exists. Just because they dumped their arms doesn't mean they have magically disappeared off the planet.


The officials are long gone.

Nope. The Official IRA still has a membership. It also has a political wing known as the Workers' Party.


People should really learn something about the struggles they suppose to support before talking crap.

Maybe you should practice what you preach before making ill-informed judgements about the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.


It's leaders have met with George Bush several times.

It's leaders have also met with Fidel Castro. Gerry Adams is also undertaking a political tour at the minute in the Middle East where he will be meeting the leaders of Hamas. I agree that the Sinn Fein leadership is rotten, but the majority of its members are ordinary working-class people who would be genuinely left-wing.


My grandfather served in the IRA and I live in Dublin there's no flag covering my anything. Your just a plastic paddy who in a desperate attempt to attach himself onto some oppressed group supports the struggle up north without having a clue about the situation.

My grandfather and both my parents served in the IRA. I'm from Belfast, so I don't really think your in a position to lecture people about the "situation" while you live 100 miles below the border.


Why support republicanism when it divides the working class?

You have to recognise that people who were brought up in catholic areas in the North have been pretty much indoctrinated with republican ideology. I myself struggled for a long time to drop this ideology as I felt I was somehow betraying the IRA men and women who fought to try and protect the catholic community from loyalist mobs. I still have a respect for those people, although now I recognise that such support will only alienate the other half of working-class people in the North.

[Xiao Banfa]

You have to recognise that people who were brought up in catholic areas in the North have been pretty much indoctrinated with republican ideology. I myself struggled for a long time to drop this ideology as I felt I was somehow betraying the IRA men and women who fought to try and protect the catholic community from loyalist mobs. I still have a respect for those people, although now I recognise that such support will only alienate the other half of working-class people in the North.


Yeah, I get this line of thinking. Cheers.

But why do comrades like Conghaileach and PRC-UTE support the IRSM and INLA?
Surely they could do a better job of explaining there position.

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:24 PM
You have to recognise that people who were brought up in catholic areas in the North have been pretty much indoctrinated with republican ideology. I myself struggled for a long time to drop this ideology as I felt I was somehow betraying the IRA men and women who fought to try and protect the catholic community from loyalist mobs. I still have a respect for those people, although now I recognise that such support will only alienate the other half of working-class people in the North.
Are you familiar with the Northern Ireland anarchist group Organise!
What do you think of them?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:06 PM
You misunderstand.

I said the INLA have shot more working class people than they have shot imperialist troops.

Yeah, and that's not true either. the link I provided earlier shows that as well.

also, the list of civilians killed by the inla includes members of the Royal Irish Regiment, a locally recruited reserve militia of the british army.


There's a dentist with no fingers who'll tell you all about what kind of socialism the IRSM stands for.

Not that I approve of what happened, but I didn't realise you had such a soft spot for wealthy contributors to fine gael.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by guydebordisdead+Sep 4 2006, 11:05 PM--> (guydebordisdead @ Sep 4 2006, 11:05 PM)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:09 PM

PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:07 PM
ever? :huh:

here's two contemporary Irish Republican groups without armed wings, mucker:

www.cgrp.info

www.newrepublicanforum.ie/
They're not political groups, they're websites.
Those are the websites of the Concerned Group for Republican Prisoners, they have photos of their members peacefully protesting the Love Ulster rally, so they're certainly political. The other site is of the New Republican Forum which is also politically active on prisoner issues, antiwar activism and so on.
They're not a massive part of the irish republican tradition, theyre small activist groups but not political partys/movements.[/b]
:rolleyes: oh c'mon, you're being so pedantic.

you didn't specify size - you just said no republican group has ever existed that didn't have an armed wing. those are distinct movements and it reveals how superficial your understanding of republicanism is - not all republicans have the gun fetish you claim they do.


Why support republicanism when it divides the working class?

Why ask ahistorical leading questions?

Maybe some people don't have the privelage of choosing to be oppressed or not?


But why do comrades like Conghaileach and PRC-UTE support the IRSM and INLA?
Surely they could do a better job of explaining there position.

I'm supposed to justify myself to the moral outrage of a hezbollah supporter? :wacko: :lol: :lol: This is good craic.

I support the INLA cos I met with an ex-POW and I was impressed by his humility and incredible commitment. I joined the IRSM because it was the most working class socialist movement I'd come across, and only the working class can liberate itself, it can't be done by any middle class leadership.

I'm in awe of the the INLA's successes in executing imperialists like Neave and defending working class people from scum like Billy the Rat. The INLA's record of defending workers from imperialists, crims and loyalists is something the irrelevant left never did. Maybe that's why they hate em. A big factor is that most the left is indifferent or hostile to the liberation of Ireland from colonialism.

I respect the IRSP for providing political leadership but not having the attitude that they have all the answers. The IRSP's willingness to work in broad fronts speaks for itself. I also respect them for admitting their errors, apologising for them and then fixing em.

Some of the best fighters for the working class ever to exist went through the ranks of the IRSM - Seamus Costello, Mickey Devine, Patsy O'Hara, Ta Power, Gino Gallagher, Kevin Lynch. That's something the left sects who hate us can never touch.

[Xiao Banfa]

I'm supposed to justify myself to the moral outrage of a hezbollah supporter?

I didn't express any moral outrage over the INLA, I just want to know why should marxists support the INLA and republicanism.

Hezbollah is in a completely different category, acomplete different material situation.

[RebelDog]

I didn't express any moral outrage over the INLA, I just want to know why should marxists support the INLA and republicanism.

We on the left should be 100% behind the republican/socialist struggle in Ireland. This is a struggle against the dispicable exesses of the British state and its ruling class. This is a struggle to establish a united socialist Ireland.


Hezbollah is in a completely different category, acomplete different material situation.

Hezbollah are defending their country against an agressive occupier who doesn't give a dam about the Lebanese people. Groups like the INLA are doing exacly the same thing.

[Xiao Banfa]

This is a struggle to establish a united socialist Ireland.

How will that eventuate? In N. Ireland tou have 50% of the population who are loyalists from different classes.
They've been brainwashed into believing nonsense about "bloodthirsty fenians" and "papists".
They are violently opposed to a united Ireland. The bloodshed which would result from a renewed armed struggle would be intractable. It would go nowhere.

I'd like to support the republican movement, I just haven't heard a commonsense argument that would lead me to do so.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 5 2006, 02:59 AM

This is a struggle to establish a united socialist Ireland.

How will that eventuate? In N. Ireland tou have 50% of the population who are loyalists from different classes.
They've been brainwashed into believing nonsense about "bloodthirsty fenians" and "papists".
They are violently opposed to a united Ireland. The bloodshed which would result from a renewed armed struggle would be intractable. It would go nowhere.

I'd like to support the republican movement, I just haven't heard a commonsense argument that would lead me to do so.
A vast majority in Ireland support a united Ireland. You say that 50% support loyalist causes but that is in the area partitioned by the British state in order to create a loyalist majority.

The ruling class violently oppose socialism, should we stop fighting because our enemies are violent? If you are not in support of the republican/socialist struggle in Ireland is there any country where you support similar activities?

[Xiao Banfa]

The ruling class violently oppose socialism, should we stop fighting because our enemies are violent? If you are not in support of the republican/socialist struggle in Ireland is there any country where you support similar activities?


You missed the point. It's not just because the loyalists are violent but because there is a parity of forces (republican/loyalists).
This parity of forces ensures mutual annihilation and misery for all.

If the republicans had a chance of winning, I would support them.
As far as I know, they don't. Prove me wrong that's why this is in learning.

[RebelDog]

You missed the point. It's not just because the loyalists are violent but because there is a parity of forces (republican/loyalists).
This parity of forces ensures mutual annihilation and misery for all.

There is no parity of forces. The full weight of the British state has been ranged against Irish Republicans for decades but still they fight because people everywhere should and do fight those who oppress them. This parity you talk of is in terms of paramilitary forces in the British partitioned north. I could cut of a bit of any country and do the same. I do not recognise N/Ireland. Ireland has been dissected by the British elite, not its people.


If the republicans had a chance of winning, I would support them.

If we just fought for things that we could somehow know we were going to definately attain, then it we would get nowhere. We as socialists fight because we tremble indignation as Che said. We have principles that we apply to every part of this planet. We fight capitalism/imperialism where we find it most excessive because that is where working people are at the frontline and suffering the most. Those who set off to fight in the Spanish civil war did so to fight the ruling class attacking the workers movement in Spain. They didn't know if they would win. If I could go back to 1936 and I knew that the republican movement in Spain was to end in defeat in 1939, I believe I would still volunteer.


Prove me wrong that's why this is in learning.

I cannot prove that the republican/socialist movement in Ireland will ever prevail, who can? I can say however that change is a constant.

[Xiao Banfa]

This parity you talk of is in terms of paramilitary forces in the British partitioned north
That's right. That's where it counts.
The situation in N. Ireland is very particular. You have a population split down the middle. There are issues which will deepen that split and issues which will bring the communities together.

[The Grey Blur]

Tino, what Makaveli posted was an objective analysis and a realistic one. Republicanism today, even of the 'Socialist' flavour, offers the working-class of Ireland nothing but delays and vague promises of a Utopian/ United Ireland.


Are you familiar with the Northern Ireland anarchist group Organise!
:lol: Bit of a misleading name for anarchists - but no I haven't ever heard mention of such a group.

We have met a few of your WSM comrades though. Isn't WSM an all-Ireland movement?

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 10:07 PM
In the 1930's there was also the Republican Congress which I don't believe had an armed wing, though I'm not 100% sure.
The Republican Congress was formed after yet another IRA split in 1934. The volunteers who split were left-wing: Republican Congress (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Congress).

I doubt they would have tolerated any pro-fascist activity during WWII by the IRA if such a thing happened.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 4 2006, 07:39 PM
As far as I'm concerned socialism and a united Ireland should develop parallel to each other. "Socialism first" won't work if the border's still in place and a "unity first" approach won't work at all if we're to acheive socialism.
You really just hit the nail in the head there.

Most socialists would argue for one or the other... the first that we can't unite the working class until we get rid of partition and the imperialist presence, the second that we can't get rid of partition and the imperialist presence until we unite the working class. Both sides of the argument have merit, but they also have their drawbacks.

The problem is that most of the far left in the North East of Ireland push for unity so much that they usually stoop down as low as they can go to appease loyalism. In fact, a member of the Socialist Party once told me that people who oppose Orange Order marches are sectarian bigots.

It's also really difficult to develop a proper position on the issue when you have groups like the SP and SWP (and anarchists too) up here screaming about imperialism everywhere and anywhere around the world (including Shannon airport in the West of Ireland) but when it comes to the North they're silent.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 4 2006, 10:07 PM
In the 1930's there was also the Republican Congress which I don't believe had an armed wing, though I'm not 100% sure.
The Irish Citizen Army continued to exist into the 1930s as a sort of comrades' association, but it was reorganised for a period within the Congress. Michael Price would have been one of the leading figures in the ICA after he left the IRA, and Nora Connolly O'Brien wrote to Trotsky in 1936 that it had around 300 members.

That being said, many of the Republican Congress, including Frank Ryan, maintained a good relationship with and were well respected by many in the IRA. In the early 30s IRA volunteers protected the Congress and the Communist Party headquarters at Connolly House from Christian Front-inspired mobs.

IRA volunteers also organised during the Outdoor Relief Strike in Belfast, and volunteers went around working class Protestant areas with leaflets written by Peadar O'Donnell calling for the working class to unite to drive imperialism and capitalism from Ireland. The unionist press used this to declare the Strike as a communist-republican conspiracy.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:25 PM
Your lack of knowledge about the situation is embarrassing. There have been no irish republican groups without an armed wing ever.
If you consider the two major periods with an upsurge of violence in the last century, around the dates 1916 and 1969, you'll see that it was unionists who brought the gun into Irish politics.

[Just Dave]

What I find really interesting about the IRA and all its sub divisions or splinters etc. is that while everyone else seems to be quick to denonuce them the only ones who actually defend them seem to be the only ones who have dealt with them first hand, the Irish comrades. Until very recently I used to condemm the IRA along with everyone else, but now I have to side with the pro IRA side, simply because they know much more about them than I ever will.

[Xiao Banfa]

Put it this way, I'm not putting any republican armed group in N. Ireland in the same bag as al Qaeda, even people like the CIRA or the RIRA.
They give warnings before their blasts, generally.

I mean, make no mistake I would love to see a united, republican Ireland.
My concerns are strategic and humanitarian.

BTW, no one has given a tight reason why I should support the INLA, although lots of interesting shit has been said.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Just [email protected] 5 2006, 09:24 PM
What I find really interesting about the IRA and all its sub divisions or splinters etc. is that while everyone else seems to be quick to denonuce them the only ones who actually defend them seem to be the only ones who have dealt with them first hand, the Irish comrades. Until very recently I used to condemm the IRA along with everyone else, but now I have to side with the pro IRA side, simply because they know much more about them than I ever will.
There's plenty of people in Ireland with first-hand knowledge of the IRA who denounce them too, including a few on these boards. We can't just support groups because a few people on Internet sites think they're OK, we have to examine what those groups stand for...

[guydebordisdead]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 5 2006, 02:56 PM
:lol: Bit of a misleading name for anarchists - but no I haven't ever heard mention of such a group.

Don't get how it's misleading. Organising is central to anarchism. :blink:

You've never heard of them? Odd, they've been around for more than ten years, mostly involved in workerist stuff.

[Conghaileach]

I read this article in a paper today, and thought it may be of interest...


Daily Ireland
09/06/2006

When one doesn’t mind being called a Provo

Danny Morrison

When the IRA split in December 1969 the dissidents set up a Provisional Army Council until a proper IRA convention could re-constitute the organisation. That convention took place in September 1970 but by then the name ‘Provisional’ or ‘Provo’ had stuck and was used as shorthand by both supporters and the media, despite the distaste some veterans in the Movement had for that term.

The organisation which the dissidents had left initially enjoyed being called the ‘Official IRA’ and ‘Official Sinn Féin’ because those sobriquets suggested authenticity and legitimacy.

Years ago, although I consciously refrained from using the term ‘Provisional’ in press statements and when an editor, I never had any problems with it. Neither did the grassroots, among whom, “Say Hello to the Provos” and “The Provo Lullaby” were extremely popular if you’ll excuse the adverb!

Different periods have seen republicanism undergo various name changes: the United Irishmen, the Young Irelanders, the Fenians, the Invincibles, the IRB, the IRA. Republicanism, militarily and politically, continually renewed itself and adapted to changed historical circumstances.

And so, the unionist pogroms of August 1969 and the subsequent repressive behaviour of British troops triggered a violent and sustained republican response and on the walls was written: “Out of the ashes of Bombay Street/Arose the Provisionals”.

During the conflict the IRA survived everything that was thrown at it because it enjoyed popular support, was resilient, could renew itself, and was fighting against a background of political and constitutional crisis. In the 1990s, with the IRA undefeated but with a military stalemate having developed, the republican leadership took a mature and courageous decision to cease fire and to negotiate. That decision transformed the dynamic of politics, north and south. And today, nationalist morale is high and its mood buoyant, despite the slow pace of the peace process.

People who were once members of the mainstream Republican Movement, either up until the split over abstentionism at the 1986 ard fheis or until the ceasefire and peace process, continually refer to Gerry Adams and the republican leadership as “Provisionals”.

You’ll see it in their statements. In fact, you’ll see it in almost every statement. It is a pretty infantile attempt at disparagement especially when one doesn’t mind being called a Provo.

I can understand why dissident republicans bristle at being called ‘dissidents’. After all, it inescapably defines and anchors them as being dissident relative to a much larger, successful republican organisation with which they disagree. But they only have themselves to blame given that they are more renowned for attacking Sinn Féin than for attacking the Brits.

Only when the IRA called a ceasefire did a group called the Continuity IRA pop up. When it first bombed a hotel or two in County Fermanagh it didn’t initially claim responsibility and so the media started to talk about “dissident republicans” because it had no other name to go on.

The name stuck: they should get over it.

Later, the Real IRA announced itself. A fair degree of activity indicated that some former IRA Volunteers alienated from the peace process sometime after 1996/97 had become involved. If ever an organisation was obsessed with trying to embarrass the republican leadership this was it. If Gerry Adams was due to go to Downing Street or meet Bill Clinton a car bomb would appear in some town in the North to coincide with his plans.

In fact, it often appeared to be a car-bomb campaign against the Republican Movement rather than against the British presence, especially when no or few British army units or police patrols were ever attacked. Objectively, the Real IRA as guerrillas were hopeless and aimless and eventually it all ended in tragedy with the Omagh bombing which itself continues to raise major questions about agent infiltration.

Presumably a proper warning was meant to get through. The bomb would have exploded, damaging buildings only. The Real IRA would have been pleased to spread gloom and confusion. And the securocrats, who facilitated the explosion, would have been exploiting and playing out the explosion from every available angle to undermine the Good Friday Agreement and Sinn Féin’s involvement in the process.

But the warning didn’t get through and the initial RUC investigation into Omagh, aimed at covering up Special Branch involvement, is slowly being exposed.

There is a certain irony in dissidents shouting sell-out and accusing Sinn Féin leaders of being British agents. How do we know the leaders of dissident republicans aren’t agents? I read their speeches and often wonder who is pulling their strings.

Those involved in armed activities appear heavily infiltrated with informers, going on the number of their operations that are compromised.

After Omagh, Real IRA activity ended – at least for a while. Two weeks ago the organisation claimed responsibility for firebombs in Newry. Again, an isolated incident – a pinprick in real terms, however costly to the locals – which only highlights the desultory nature of their campaign.

They will never get off the ground. There is no comparison to the type of oppression and brutality which gave rise to the IRA campaign. When we fought we had support within the community. Dissidents can never hope to replicate the tempo of the IRA campaign. Today nationalists are glad the war is over, feel that a political solution is available and have rejected the SDLP in favour of Sinn Féin.

IRA Volunteers fought in the North; risked their lives bombing England and attacking those British politico-militarists responsible for war; operated in Europe; internationally sought and organised the importation of weapons; went to jail, died in jails and died on the streets and in the countryside. Many thousands of supporters – in Ireland and further afield – also suffered for the republican cause.

Now, you would think that this would entitle them to some say, the right to approve a strategy even if it meant adopting an imperfect peace process. But not according to dissidents who are completely elitist – despite not being able to muster numbers.

They cannot sustain a propaganda newspaper or magazine. They have not produced a programme. They have not offered a compelling analysis or even a woeful one. Their spokespersons have been spectacularly unimpressive and inarticulate. They cannot even organise a meeting.

But, still, they are former comrades who maybe even once sang, “The Provo Lullaby”! They cannot all harbour that sense of personal hatred – a throwback to some perceived slight in the past, no doubt – which seems to motivate some of their more public spokespersons. If there is space for debate and discussion, even in private, it should be pursued. It would never be a waste of time.

Despite the early release of prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement there are still political prisoners in jails, north and south: many of these as a result of dissident or alleged dissident activity. They are entitled to be treated as political prisoners. It would be difficult to mobilise public opinion for an amnesty until the organisations to which they owe allegiance declare ceasefires but the situation here will not be normalised until all political prisoners are free.

The sincerity of those dissident republicans who believe that the strategy of the Republican Movement is wrong is easily tested. Leave aside the personal attacks and explain what the alternative strategy should be. I don’t believe there is one. But I am prepared to listen.

Source (http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?scope=DailyIreland/Content/Comment&id=22802&psv=1)

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 5 2006, 03:56 PM

Are you familiar with the Northern Ireland anarchist group Organise!
:lol: Bit of a misleading name for anarchists - but no I haven't ever heard mention of such a group.
Organise! was set up four or five years ago. It's got a handful of members in Belfast, they've mostly been busy as of late trying to get Just Books (a radical Belfast bookstore) resurrected. They recently launched a online version of the shop.



We have met a few of your WSM comrades though. Isn't WSM an all-Ireland movement?
I think that WSM's strongholds are Cork and Dublin, whereas Organise!'s would be Belfast. The WSM, Organise! and Anarchist Youth generally have a good relationship - though Organise! have criticised WSM's stance on partition and imperialism as being "nationalist".

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by guydebordisdead+Sep 5 2006, 12:27 AM--> (guydebordisdead @ Sep 5 2006, 12:27 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 11:24 PM
You have to recognise that people who were brought up in catholic areas in the North have been pretty much indoctrinated with republican ideology. I myself struggled for a long time to drop this ideology as I felt I was somehow betraying the IRA men and women who fought to try and protect the catholic community from loyalist mobs. I still have a respect for those people, although now I recognise that such support will only alienate the other half of working-class people in the North.
Are you familiar with the Northern Ireland anarchist group Organise!
What do you think of them? [/b]
Yes I am familiar with them. They are a small group, but they seem to be pretty active when it comes to protests and the like. There's even one guy from Organise! who occasionally attends Socialist Party meetings.


I mean, make no mistake I would love to see a united, republican Ireland.

No socialist could ever support the British occupation of Ireland. But running around shouting Brits out will only serve to alienate the protestant working-class in the North. That is why it is so important for the working-class here to be united under the banner of socialism. If we can manage to unite the majority of workers in the North, I don't think partition would last too long.

[The Grey Blur]

There's even one guy from Organise! who occasionally attends Socialist Party meetings.
Ahhh...


You've never heard of them?
Turns out I have

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 5 2006, 11:51 PM
Put it this way, I'm not putting any republican armed group in N. Ireland in the same bag as al Qaeda, even people like the CIRA or the RIRA.
They give warnings before their blasts, generally.

I mean, make no mistake I would love to see a united, republican Ireland.
My concerns are strategic and humanitarian.

BTW, no one has given a tight reason why I should support the INLA, although lots of interesting shit has been said.
well that's a fair question and a pretty balanced assessment.

I wouldn't approach the issue that way, about supporting the inla. the inla are under the control of the irsp, and armed struggle is viewed as just a tactic by the irsm to be used when conditions call for it.

having said that, I support them because I agree with their current position (defensive) and that they haven't sold out. There's nothing to be gained from armed struggle right now, but continuing to defend our communities from threats such as criminal elements is what I agree with. They have a good record of defending the working class and avoid a vanguardist approach. They're the only republican armed force still capable of being a threat to the brits, the others are compromised. Above all I support them because they're a workers army.

[Xiao Banfa]

That's cool, PRC-UTE. Are there some books you could recommend and some articles you could link me to in order to deepen my knowledge of the conflict and the INLA in particular?

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Intentionally targeting civilains is a tactic that will gain no real popular support.

Too many of the pIRA's attacks seemed to target working-class people.

[The Grey Blur]

:lol: Way not to read a thread

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 7 2006, 08:54 AM
That's cool, PRC-UTE. Are there some books you could recommend and some articles you could link me to in order to deepen my knowledge of the conflict and the INLA in particular?
sure mate.

INLA statement to the people of England (http://irsm.org/statements/inla/821210.html)

INLA Statement on Attack on RUC Patrol 28 December 1998 (http://irsm.org/statements/inla/980228.html)

INLA statement on execution of King Rat (http://irsm.org/statements/inla/971227.html)

More INLA statements (http://irsm.org/statements/inla.html)

This is republican socialism (http://irsm.org/irsp/tirs.html)

History and principles of the IRSM (http://irsm.org/history/)

What is Irish Republican Socialism (http://irsm.org/history/whatis.html)

Derry IRSP history of INLA (http://www.angelfire.com/space/derryirsp/inla.htm)

IRSP Political Secretary John Martin's presentation on republican socialism (http://irsm.org/history/repsocialism.html)

Roy Garland: Broken Hearts in Belfast (http://www.irsm.org/irsp/related_items/garland-020506.html)

[Redmau5]

Intentionally targeting civilains is a tactic that will gain no real popular support.

Too many of the pIRA's attacks seemed to target working-class people.

Such as? The only real one I can think of is when the IRA shot dead 9 protestant work men in retaliation for the murder of catholics. Of course, that is indefensible, but it was a rare time when the IRA actually targeted civilians. Can you give me other examples when civilians were deliberately targeted?

[RebelDog]

Conghaileach (from article)
the Omagh bombing which itself continues to raise major questions about agent infiltration.

Can you bring us up to date on this. What is the current understanding in the movement over what happened in Qmagh? If M15 were involved, to what extent? Don't answer any of this if this if don't feel able to.
Thanks

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2006, 03:15 AM

Conghaileach (from article)
the Omagh bombing which itself continues to raise major questions about agent infiltration.

Can you bring us up to date on this. What is the current understanding in the movement over what happened in Qmagh? If M15 were involved, to what extent? Don't answer any of this if this if don't feel able to.
Thanks
a british agent selected the bombing sight, set it up and the ruc pushed the crowd towards the bomb.

police ombudsman Nuala O'Loan confirmed some of this in her investigations that have been sabatoged by the brits.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:52 PM

Intentionally targeting civilains is a tactic that will gain no real popular support.

Too many of the pIRA's attacks seemed to target working-class people.

Such as? The only real one I can think of is when the IRA shot dead 9 protestant work men in retaliation for the murder of catholics. Of course, that is indefensible, but it was a rare time when the IRA actually targeted civilians. Can you give me other examples when civilians were deliberately targeted?
They put bombs in pubs, shopping centres etc. Of course they'd still claim they weren't targeting civilians but it's an irrlevance. The proof is in the pudding. They killed hundreds, including children. The report yesterday from the IMC was most welcome.

[Redmau5]

They put bombs in pubs, shopping centres etc.

Pubs frequented by British soldiers. And in the case of shopping centres, warnings were always given before the bomb unless it exploded prematurely.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Gold Against The [email protected] 5 2006, 09:13 AM
The report yesterday from the IMC was most welcome.
When the Brits & Free State were trying to appease the DUP the IRA 'were still involved in criminality' but now that the Brits & Free State's aim is to entice Loyalists into decommissioning the IRA are practically being praised in IMC reports.

The IMC simply complys with the beurgeoisie government's aims

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:11 PM

They put bombs in pubs, shopping centres etc.

Pubs frequented by British soldiers. And in the case of shopping centres, warnings were always given before the bomb unless it exploded prematurely.
And pubs frequented by civilians, who died. Would you go with the US and their 'collateral damage' view of such things?. And how can you condone something like Warrington?. A 3 year old and 12 year old killed. The warning apparently rang through for Boots in Liverpool and either way, a warning isn't much good to the dead.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The warning apparently rang through for Boots in Liverpool and either way, a warning isn't much good to the dead.
So they made a mistake. The fact remains that they gave a warning.

Also, saying a warning isn't much good to the dead is like saying hospitals aren't any good because they can't save everyone.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by RedStar191[email protected] 5 2006, 07:37 PM

The warning apparently rang through for Boots in Liverpool and either way, a warning isn't much good to the dead.
So they made a mistake. The fact remains that they gave a warning.

Also, saying a warning isn't much good to the dead is like saying hospitals aren't any good because they can't save everyone.
My point was, it doesn't matter if a warning was given. It was the deliberate targeting of civilians. What else would you call a bomb in a rubbish bin, in the middle of a shopping centre?.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

My point was, it doesn't matter if a warning was given. It was the deliberate targeting of civilians. What else would you call a bomb in a rubbish bin, in the middle of a shopping centre?.
You mean a shopping centre that, had all gone according to plan, would have been empty? I'd call it targeting of property.

If I pointed a gun at you and then told you to get out of the way, would you call it attempted murder?

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:58 PM


My point was, it doesn't matter if a warning was given. It was the deliberate targeting of civilians. What else would you call a bomb in a rubbish bin, in the middle of a shopping centre?.
You mean a shopping centre that, had all gone according to plan, would have been empty? I'd call it targeting of property.

If I pointed a gun at you and then told you to get out of the way, would you call it attempted murder?
No but what if it 'didn't go according to plan' as you put it and you accidentally killed me?. Fancy your chances in court with a defence of 'But I wasn't targeting him!'?. Even if went to plan, it's still a threat of violence against civilians. In the same way, you putting a gun in my face is threatening violence.

Don't put bombs in litter bins in the first place and you don't need to worry about warnings or killing kids. What did they hope to gain from that sort of crap?. Now the 1984 Tory party conference, Airey Neave, Lord Manbatten etc, that was more like it but bombs in shopping centres and killing little boys was just moronic and counter productive.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Actually just checked back and Airey Neave was the INLA but either way, job well done.

[The Grey Blur]

Don't put bombs in litter bins in the first place and you don't need to worry about warnings or killing kids. What did they hope to gain from that sort of crap?. Now the 1984 Tory party conference, Airey Neave, Lord Mountbatten that was more like it
Actually two kids were blown up with Mountbatten. Individual terrorism cannot be condoned no matter what the end. But regardless, it's proven an abject failure.

I doubt you mind when the IRA blows up Ireland, but bringing the conflict home...hmm...we can't have that.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 5 2006, 09:47 PM

Don't put bombs in litter bins in the first place and you don't need to worry about warnings or killing kids. What did they hope to gain from that sort of crap?. Now the 1984 Tory party conference, Airey Neave, Lord Mountbatten that was more like it
Actually two kids were blown up with Mountbatten. Individual terrorism cannot be condoned no matter what the end. But regardless, it's proven an abject failure.

I doubt you mind when the IRA blows up Ireland, but bringing the conflict home...hmm...we can't have that.
Mountbatten and members of the government can at least be described as non-civilian targets, whether you agree with the cause or not. There was no Mountbatten or Tories in sight, anywhere in Warrington!.

[PRC-UTE]

I agree that targetting shopping malls was a bad idea. They were to cost the brits money, not to kill civialians, but it's misleading. Those bombs send the wrong message- makes it seem that the war was against the people of britain.

On the other hand, there's actually footage I've seen on tv of british miners saying they would've been happy had the IRA gotten thatcher. :D

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 5 2006, 03:54 PM
The IMC simply complys with the beurgeoisie government's aims
that's bourgeois government. If you're going to pose as a Marxist, at least bother to learn the terminology.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 5 2006, 09:47 PM
Actually two kids were blown up with Mountbatten. Individual terrorism cannot be condoned no matter what the end. But regardless, it's proven an abject failure.

Just to clarify - Trotksy's theory of 'Individual Terrorism' applied specifically to normal times of peace. Leon clarified that when war was already going on, assasinations of the enemy's leaders, like the one carried out against Mountbatten, were useful. Context matters.

[Xiao Banfa]

The brits and the RUC want innocents to die- so they can paint themselves as heroes and the IRA as wankers.

I've never held back from that position.

[The Grey Blur]

I didn't even know it was Trotsky's 'theory', I just regard it as practical Marxism not to condone individual terrorism, an act which directly disempowers the masses in favour of an armed elite.


when war was already going on
So you class the INLA's failed attempt at urban guerillism as a 'war' - who's misusing terminology now?


assasinations of the enemy's leaders, like the one carried out against Mountbatten, were useful
Mountbatten was nothing more than a figurehead

I've had this argument with Irps before and I've seen them ignore reason endlessly, attempting to revel in a falsely glorified past. Move on and become a non-sectarian working-class force or be confined to the dustbin of history along with ETA, the RAF and every other failed experiment at the 'armed party'.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 6 2006, 03:27 PM
I didn't even know it was Trotsky's 'theory', I just regard it as practical Marxism not to condone individual terrorism, an act which directly disempowers the masses in favour of an armed elite.


when war was already going on
So you class the INLA's failed attempt at urban guerillism as a 'war' - who's misusing terminology now?


assasinations of the enemy's leaders, like the one carried out against Mountbatten, were useful
Mountbatten was nothing more than a figurehead

I've had this argument with Irps before and I've seen them ignore reason endlessly, attempting to revel in a falsely glorified past. Move on and become a non-sectarian working-class force or be confined to the dustbin of history along with ETA, the RAF and every other failed experiment at the 'armed party'.
:wacko:

yeah, it's pretty obvious you didn't know shit about the theory a mhac. didn't stop you from opening your mouth though.

the inla wasn't at war?? you're getting stranger and stranger... try to keep in mind what I was actually saying, that the war started in '69, and it wasn't started by republicans. Relates to what I was saying about the actual theory of Individual Terrrorism v your silly version of it.

The IRSP changed its tactics in 1998... where've you been?

[Seven Stars]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+Oct 6 2006, 06:57 AM--> (PRC-UTE @ Oct 6 2006, 06:57 AM)
Permanent [email protected] 5 2006, 09:47 PM
Actually two kids were blown up with Mountbatten. Individual terrorism cannot be condoned no matter what the end. But regardless, it's proven an abject failure.

Just to clarify - Trotksy's theory of 'Individual Terrorism' applied specifically to normal times of peace. Leon clarified that when war was already going on, assasinations of the enemy's leaders, like the one carried out against Mountbatten, were useful. Context matters. [/b]
PR, you got owned!

[Xiao Banfa]

Ireland – the end of
the struggle?

Philip Ferguson

The Spark 18 October 2005



On July 28 this year, the IRA leadership announced that it had "formally ordered an end to the armed campaign." All units of the IRA were ordered to dump arms. All IRA members were instructed to "assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means." The leadership declared, "Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever" (IRA statement, July 28, 2005).

Two months later, on Monday, September 26, the IRA destroyed the last of its weapons arsenal, witnessed by the Independent International Commission on Decomissioning (IICD, headed by General John de Chastelain) and several religious observers.

Nearly forty years of struggle have been brought to an end.

The last round of struggle for Irish freedom began in the mid-1960s, with demands for the removal of apartheid-like forms of discrimination against the nationalist population in the part of Ireland ruled by Britain ("Northern Ireland"). As the movement for civil rights grew, the state in the north responded with violence and the oppressed began defending themselves. In 1969, the British government sent in troops to "restore order" – in reality, to begin dismantling the liberated areas which had started to emerge behind barricades.

The Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein were the main expressions of the northern nationalist community’s opposition to British rule. However both split at the end of 1960 and start of 1970, over the nature of the struggle and how to go forward. The ‘Officials’ began gravitating towards Moscow and adopted a ‘stagist’ theory which put off both the struggle for national liberation and the struggle for socialism to the more distant future, while the Provisionals (Provos) argued for the centrality of the national liberation struggle. The Official leadership was also charged, by the people who founded the Provos, with having left the nationalist ghettoes in the north defenceless when the state and the loyalists (the pro-imperialist forces in the north) began attacking them.

Literally thousands of young working class nationalists began swarming into the Provos in the early 1970s, as the British state used terror tactics to quell the movement for civil rights and for removal of the British troops.

Within several years, the Officials abandoned armed struggle and settled down to build a mild, reformist party which looked to the Eastern European regimes for political inspiration and support. It increasingly adopted pro-imperialist positions, seeing imperialism as a modernising force in Irish society!

The Provos continued to grow and, over time, adopt more explicitly socialist positions, developing the declared aim of a socialist republic, to be achieved as the result of the struggle to drive out the British occupation forces and reunite the country.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Provos and the nationalist working class in the north of Ireland carried out a heroic struggle against the number 2 imperialist power in the world, resisting everything that the British state threw at them – armed occupation, assassinations (the ‘shoot-to-kill’ policies), no-jury courts, paid informers, rubber and plastic bullets, internment without trial, terrible treatment of political prisoners, heavy censorship and other forms of repression.

The British state not only had its own formidable arsenal, but could count on support from the loyalists in the north of Ireland, the southern Irish ‘mainstream’ political parties and also the moderate northern nationalist party, the SDLP.

Although the Provos won a lot of sympathy and support, especially at the time of the 1981 hunger strikes, they never managed to make a political breakthrough in the south and, increasingly, became isolated around the armed campaign. In addition, most of the British left preferred to talk about any issue other than Ireland and failed to build a troops out movement that could put the squeeze on the British government. In Britain, Labour and the Conservatives pursued a bipartisan policy of trying to crush the Provos and other revolutionary groups such as the IRSP-INLA (Irish Republican Socialist Party-Irish National Liberation Army).

By the late 1980s, elements within the Provo leadership, such as Gerry Adams, began looking for a way to bring the struggle to an end. They opened up secret talks with the British state behind the backs of the rest of the movement and, over a period of 15 years, began slowly moving the Provo movement towards an accommodation with the imperialists. This was done with a great deal of dishonesty and cynicism.

At every step they posed as the strongest advocates of the armed struggle and reassured their members that the struggle would be seen through to victory. Behind the scenes they continued to carry out secret talks with the British, got rid of radical opponents within the movement and manoeuvred the movement into a cul-de-sac from which there was no escape.

It has taken a long time for the leadership around Adams to bring the Provos’ struggle for national liberation and socialism to an end. By the early 1990s, they had stopped talking about socialism and, within a few more years, they stopped talking about national liberation. The highest goals of Adams and his cabal became power-sharing on both sides of the border in Ireland, hobnobbing with corporate America and becoming media personalities and authors. Ireland continues to be partitioned by the British state and exploited by imperialism, both American and European.

The Provos went into a British-controlled government in the north and hope to return to such positions shortly (the British suspended the northern parliament but are likely to get it running again in the wake of the IRA dumping of arms). In the south, their aim is to get into coalition with the capitalist Fianna Fail party, which was begun by a former group of renegades from republicanism back in the mid-1920s.

In effect, the Provo leadership has converted the movement from a revolutionary nationalist force attracted to socialism into a harmless bourgeois nationalist force whose highest horizon is to collaborate with imperialism and the local capitalist class in running Ireland.

While the Provo leadership has decided to join the Irish establishment fundamental problems facing the Irish masses such as partition and imperialist domination remain.

In the past, the defeat or surrender of Irish revolutionary movements has brought the struggle to an end for a generation. However the sell-out by the Provo leadership is part of a global trend. Most of the revolutionary nationalist leaderships of the 1970s have now abandoned revolutionary politics. The national liberation struggles which continue tend to be led by forces explicitly identifying with Marxism. It may be that the period of revolutionary nationalist movements is over and that, simply in order for national liberation struggles to continue, they now require Marxist leadership. o



Philip Ferguson is a former Sinn Fein activist and now a member of the Anti-Capitalist Alliance