Log in

View Full Version : IMT report on Republican Socialist Youth school



PRC-UTE
8th March 2008, 18:15
Irish Republican Socialist Youth Movement Day School
By Ewan Gibbs
Friday, 07 March 2008
On the 23rd February three comrades of the International Marxist Tendency
attended the Republican Socialist Youth Movement's winter day school in
Belfast. The school was split into several discussions on various subject
matters, with debate being encouraged throughout.


Bernadette McAliskey addressing the meeting


The day began with a lead off on the question of loyalism by longstanding
Irish Republican Socialist Party member Jim Daly. He argued that
republican socialism could not compromise with loyalism. In the tradition
of Connolly and Costello, republican socialists had to be unequivocally
opposed to loyalism and understand that it stands in opposition to a
united socialist Ireland and in support of the continued partition of the
island. Jim reiterated that the aim of republican socialists was to unite
the Irish working class both protestant and catholic.

Jim then demonstrated the incorrect positions that Stalinism and reformism
had offered in relation to this. Sinn Fein has now effectively given up on
a united Ireland or talk of revolution. The Irish Communist Party had
split its sections into north and south and only campaigned on economic
issues, in an effort to win over loyalist workers. Such a position offered
no real solution to the divisive national question and was akin to the
position of economism that Connolly had dubbed "gas and water socialism".

After this Sean McGowan, a leading comrade of RSYM gave a speech on the
central role of the Irish working class. He firstly pointed to this being
the tenth year of the Good Friday Agreement. This was something that
strengthened the union between the north of Ireland and Britain and
engrained sectarianism in the state. Stormont was also being used as a
vehicle through which to launch economic attacks on the working class.
This was shown through the recent introduction of privatisations (PFI).

Sean cited a Sinn Fein pamphlet dating to the turn of the twentieth
century that revealed they had always leant on middle and ruling class
elements, with appeals to men to encourage them to use Irish tailors. The
IRA had been used by Sinn Fein's leaders to set back the moves of the most
advanced sections of the working class in the 1920s through actions such
as smashing soviets and factory occupations.

The militarist structure and leadership of the republican movement in the
years that followed were used as a barrier to conscious working class
tendencies forming. Yet, within the provisional republican movement there
had been the formation of the League of Communist Republicans within the H
block prisoners. The leadership sidelined this and the mass movement that
had built up around the hunger strikes, as its sole focus on armed
struggle saw no need for a mass movement. Only the Irish Republican
Socialist Movement had tried to seriously mobilise around this.

Sean summed up by stressing that the lessons pointed out by Ta Power [see
The Ta Power Document: An Essay on the History of The Irish Republican
Socialist Movement] remain largely unlearned; the need for a mass
revolutionary party to unite the working class in its own interests and
lead it to a united socialist Ireland. There remains no alternative for
the working class but socialism.

A broad range of points were raised in the discussion that followed
including republicanism's origins in the struggle of the oppressed
classes, Wolfe Tone's appeal to "the men of no property".

Francesco Merli, a member of the Hands Off Venezuela campaign, then led
off on the revolution in Venezuela. He began by stressing the
international character of the Venezuelan revolution, with Venezuela as
the fourth biggest producer of oil and also being surrounded by Latin
American countries whose masses have suffered similar hardships to those
suffered by the Venezuelan masses. The revolution clearly is clearly
having an effect on the rest of the world. Francesco gave a brief history
of the Venezuelan revolution, from 1998 when Chavez was elected president
to the present. Recent years have seen a growing radicalisation and the
qualitative change of the Bolivarian movement from one of national
democracy to one that increasingly regards itself as fighting for
socialism. The recent defeat in the referendum on a new constitution
showed that the revolution is far from won and that a struggle against the
bureaucracy and right wing was needed inside the Bolivarian movement.


Book stall at the RSYM day school


The discussion following this revealed a spirit of internationalism
amongst those attending the school. A clear interest in events unfolding
in Venezuela was evident. Questions were asked about a number of issues,
including the role that the indigenous people of Venezuela have played in
the revolution and the role of the masses. Francesco stressed the need for
a planned socialist economy in Venezuela under the control of the working
class.

The final discussion went into the compatibility between republicanism and
socialism. It was introduced by veteran socialist and republican
campaigner Bernadette McAliskey. She began by stating this was an
important question in the Irish left due to recent debate over whether
republicanism was a hindrance to socialists. She firstly felt that it was
important to define what republicanism was. When it first began,
republicanism challenged the privileges of monarchs and the right to
govern without consent. In a modern sense it extends to the collective
right of self-determination of all peoples, a demand that is an essential
part of socialism.

As with the case of socialism, republicanism is not an Irish creation.
Socialism extends republicanism's ideas and argues for the rights of the
working class and explains the economic process of the exploitation of the
working class.

Bernadette went on to explain that socialism in Ireland can only be
carried through on a republican basis. This is a question of the material
conditions. In Ireland republicanism necessitated separatism as part of
achieving national liberation. By the same token, though, the unification
of Ireland could only be achieved on a socialist basis. The experience of
cross-class alliances and fighting for national unity had been a failure.
However, it was emphasised that this was more than just a failure, it was
an inevitability. Sinn Fein had always been on the path towards where it
has ended now. It did not have a class-conscious outlook and the very
people that initiated the call to armed struggle had abandoned it.

The discussion that followed raised the question of the armed struggle and
the role of arms within the republican struggle. Bernadette argued that,
while not militarists, republican socialists defend the right of the
people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the gains that they have
made. This is not a point of principle however.

The day itself was characterised by openness and discussion that is often
missing from stage-managed events that I have attended previously. A
willingness to discuss was shown throughout, yet there was also a firm but
comradely pressing of Marxist ideas. This is an admirable approach and
equally impressive was the attendance of young comrades of school age.
This lays the foundation for further advances for the Republican Socialist
Youth Movement.

http://www.marxist.com/ireland/republican-socialist-youth-movement-day-school.htm (http://www.marxist.com/ireland/republican-socialist-youth-movement-day-school.htm)

Die Neue Zeit
8th March 2008, 18:37
Jim then demonstrated the incorrect positions that Stalinism and reformism
had offered in relation to this. Sinn Fein has now effectively given up on
a united Ireland or talk of revolution. The Irish Communist Party had
split its sections into north and south and only campaigned on economic
issues, in an effort to win over loyalist workers. Such a position offered
no real solution to the divisive national question and was akin to the
position of economism that Connolly had dubbed "gas and water socialism".

How ironic, that the "Communists" have become economists. BTW, you should check out this Theory thread on the label "Communist" (and even "Socialist"):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/term-communist-beyond-t71765/index.html


Sean summed up by stressing that the lessons pointed out by Ta Power [see The Ta Power Document: An Essay on the History of The Irish Republican Socialist Movement] remain largely unlearned; the need for a mass revolutionary party to unite the working class in its own interests and lead it to a united socialist Ireland. There remains no alternative for the working class but socialism.

How can the lessons of "republican socialism" (which should be re-labelled "republican social proletocracy" ;) ) be applied globally, though?


Francesco Merli, a member of the Hands Off Venezuela campaign, then led
off on the revolution in Venezuela. He began by stressing the
international character of the Venezuelan revolution, with Venezuela as
the fourth biggest producer of oil and also being surrounded by Latin
American countries whose masses have suffered similar hardships to those
suffered by the Venezuelan masses. The revolution clearly is clearly
having an effect on the rest of the world. Francesco gave a brief history
of the Venezuelan revolution, from 1998 when Chavez was elected president
to the present. Recent years have seen a growing radicalisation and the
qualitative change of the Bolivarian movement from one of national
democracy to one that increasingly regards itself as fighting for
socialism. The recent defeat in the referendum on a new constitution
showed that the revolution is far from won and that a struggle against the
bureaucracy and right wing was needed inside the Bolivarian movement.

I dunno... per my thread on the need to go beyond minimum-maximum and proceed to minimum-reformist-revolutionary (in terms of program issues), Chavez has fulfilled the minimum demands, but a lot of the reformist demands are being stalled (of course, he has no intention of fulfilling the revolutionary demand for rule by the working class - proletocracy).


The discussion following this revealed a spirit of internationalism
amongst those attending the school. A clear interest in events unfolding
in Venezuela was evident. Questions were asked about a number of issues,
including the role that the indigenous people of Venezuela have played in
the revolution and the role of the masses. Francesco stressed the need for
a planned socialist economy in Venezuela under the control of the working
class.

I'd like to see the indigenous question be addressed more properly in Canada and especially the US.

RNK
8th March 2008, 18:45
Bernadette went on to explain that socialism in Ireland can only be
carried through on a republican basis.

...ie, reformist basis. Oookay, seems like they're basically an inch away from just stating the obvious.

Die Neue Zeit
8th March 2008, 19:48
^^^ Huh? :confused:


When it first began, republicanism challenged the privileges of monarchs and the right to govern without consent. In a modern sense it extends to the collective right of self-determination of all peoples, a demand that is an essential part of socialism.

I will only disagree with the overly inclusive "all peoples" remark, if only because it can refer to bourgeois elements. "All working peoples" would have sounded much better. :)

Lenin was a "republican" socialist of sorts. After all, it wasn't for nothing that Russia became a Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.

PRC-UTE
8th March 2008, 20:43
...ie, reformist basis. Oookay, seems like they're basically an inch away from just stating the obvious.

If you're saying that being dogmatic, unapologetic republicans makes our political tradition "reformist", then you must apply the same to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Connolly. To all of genuine Marxism. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but Marxism has always been pro-republican. It was the later Stalintern deviations (stagism primarily) that changed that.

PRC-UTE
8th March 2008, 20:45
^^^ Huh? :confused:



I will only disagree with the "all peoples" remark, if only because it can refer to bourgeois elements.

Lenin was a "republican" socialist of sorts. After all, it wasn't for nothing that Russia became a Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.

Anything less than establishing global communism TOMORROW is a sellout, comrade. That seems to be the same kind of crap you hear from all these trendy lefties, no matter what label they apply to themselves.

PRC-UTE
8th March 2008, 20:47
How can the lessons of "republican socialism" (which should be re-labelled "republican social proletocracy" ;) ) be applied globally, though?



I could put you in touch with Sean, the comrade that said that if you like, he's a friend of mine.

Die Neue Zeit
8th March 2008, 20:52
^^^ Go right ahead! :D


Anything less than establishing global communism TOMORROW is a sellout, comrade. That seems to be the same kind of crap you hear from all these trendy lefties, no matter what label they apply to themselves.

Then you should have said "self-determination of all working peoples" instead of just "all peoples."

[Other than that major semantical difference, I agree with you. :) ]

Comerade Ted Grant
9th March 2008, 01:12
Did you notice that comerade Alan Woods spoke at Eton in the UK? I think he won some followers.

Die Neue Zeit
9th March 2008, 03:19
^^^ What in blazes does that have to do with "republican socialism"? :glare:

black magick hustla
9th March 2008, 03:50
That seems to be the same kind of crap you hear from all these trendy lefties, no matter what label they apply to themselves.

lol, how is it trendy. there are more "lifestylist communists" with che guevara tshirts supporting nationalist thugs than there are "trendy internationalists".

Die Neue Zeit
9th March 2008, 03:58
^^^ B-I-N-G-O!

Meanwhile, Rosa Luxemburg and James Connolly are still grossly underrated "martyrs" in the shadow of the grossly overrated Che Guevara. :(

Louis Pio
9th March 2008, 05:49
lol, how is it trendy. there are more "lifestylist communists" with che guevara tshirts supporting nationalist thugs than there are "trendy internationalists".

Ohh you are right, just like there is so many internetrevolutionaries writing crap without putting forward any political points....

RNK
9th March 2008, 07:25
If you're saying that being dogmatic, unapologetic republicans makes our political tradition "reformist",

I don't even understand what you're saying.


then you must apply the same to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Connolly. ... Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but Marxism has always been pro-republican.

During Marx's day, and in semi-fuedal Russia, and semi-fuedal Germany, and today in semi-fuedal Nepal, republicanism is progressive.


It was the later Stalintern deviations (stagism primarily) that changed that.

No. The successful application of the bourgeois revolution, of industrialization and the development of capitalism has changed that. Stop blaming everything on some dead tart to solve all of your problems.

Rosa Luxemburg didn't run around jungles in a military uniform shitting chocolate milk and kept up all nice by rampant headlice, all while leading a guerilla army. People aren't attracted to Che because he died (unless the comrade is suicidal), they're attracted to him because he lived out every boy's fantasy of gun-running adventure.

I mean, if I see any comrades start saying "I want to be martyred" I'm going to become very worried.

PRC-UTE
9th March 2008, 18:06
I don't even understand what you're saying.

You said Bernadette was reformist for stating that socialist struggle in Ireland must be carried out in a republican way. I'm saying quite clearly that if being against the British occupation and being for self-determination on the basis of uniting the orange and green working class together makes us reformist (that's what republicanism stands for), than so is Marxism.



During Marx's day, and in semi-fuedal Russia, and semi-fuedal Germany, and today in semi-fuedal Nepal, republicanism is progressive.

Republicanism is realistically the starting point for revolutionary politics in oppressed nations (see Marx or Connolly for more on this). The point to make is that it has to be part of a socialist struggle, as the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations are tied to the imperialist bourgeoisie.



No. The successful application of the bourgeois revolution, of industrialization and the development of capitalism has changed that. Stop blaming everything on some dead tart to solve all of your problems.

The successful establishment of capitalism doesn't mean that the tasks of the democratic revolution remain unfulfilled; it means that only the working class can conclude them, as Trotsky and Connolly argued. I don't see how that can even be disagreed with it's so clear.

PRC-UTE
9th March 2008, 18:15
lol, how is it trendy. there are more "lifestylist communists" with che guevara tshirts supporting nationalist thugs than there are "trendy internationalists".

How is it trendy? Because aside from a few extremely rare cases, it's only a very small layer of youth in a few first world countries who adhere to purist communist politics- the kind of politics that are so pure they reject any actual, real world struggles against exploitation. That's pretty much trendy by definition. For example, calling anti-imperialists 'thugs'. If you knew anything about revolution, you'd realise it's not a tea party.

Btw, I'm in practice more internationalist than most the trendy lefties going on about internationalism.

I don't know any lifestyle communist; I have seen a lot of middle class university students that where Che shirts if that's what you mean.

black magick hustla
9th March 2008, 21:02
Funny the "first world" kids you refer to are turkish and a mexican guy. :lol:

Especially when the second biggest section of the ICC is in Mexico city.

You don't know what you are talking about.

also i wasnt calling "irish anti-imperialist" nationalist thugs, i dont know enough about them to make such a statement.

bolshevik butcher
9th March 2008, 22:42
...ie, reformist basis. Oookay, seems like they're basically an inch away from just stating the obvious.

I'd have thought as a Maoist you would understand the importance of national liberation struggles within the class struggle.

British imperialism partitioned Ireland in the 1920s and ever since has continued to rule the north on the basis of a sectarian divide and rule policy. The situation is a concrete issue that clearly affects working class people every day in the North of Ireland. To fail to address this would be to slide into the economism that many left groups have done in Ireland. It would be a disasterous outlook, and one the IRSP have done well to avoid.

I think arguing for a united republic, on a socialist basis in Ireland is the only tennable position a marxist could take. At the same time only a united working class can achieve this, rather than fighting for national liberation as a seperate stagist goal from socialism.

Sorry if this wasn't made clear in the article.

black magick hustla
9th March 2008, 22:46
also

i dont understand the point of "irish antiimperialism". I mean i understand where left nationalists are coming from when supporting hezbollah, or palestinain resistance etc, but i dont understand irish antiimperialism. Ireland is an affluent country, which doesnt seems "imperialist opressed" to me. It seems to me that the whole ireland independence thing has more to do with distilled patriotism than anything else.

PRC-UTE
9th March 2008, 23:17
Funny the "first world" kids you refer to are turkish and a mexican guy. :lol:

Especially when the second biggest section of the ICC is in Mexico city.

You don't know what you are talking about.

also i wasnt calling "irish anti-imperialist" nationalist thugs, i dont know enough about them to make such a statement.

I said with a few exceptions that ultraleftists and purist communists are mostly from youth in the first world. if you want to seriously deny that it's not true for the most part you are seriously damaging your own credibility.

PRC-UTE
9th March 2008, 23:19
also

i dont understand the point of "irish antiimperialism". I mean i understand where left nationalists are coming from when supporting hezbollah, or palestinain resistance etc, but i dont understand irish antiimperialism. Ireland is an affluent country, which doesnt seems "imperialist opressed" to me. It seems to me that the whole ireland independence thing has more to do with distilled patriotism than anything else.

"No investigation, no right to speak".

why don't you check out the facts about poverty and daily life in the occupied six counties that Britain still holds onto- it's poorer and far worse off than any part of the UK, lowest wages, is still a colonial statelet based on sectarian headcounts, etc.

black magick hustla
10th March 2008, 00:30
The thing is that it is not a "few exceptions". The most serious "ultralefti purist" organizations have relatively big prescence in third world countries, compared to their first world counterparts. I am not damaging the credibility of anything. In fact, the ICC was founded in Venezuela.