INLA, IRSM, etc.

[PRC-UTE]

:lol: We really broke your heart didn't we?

In any case, there was never anything personal said (since we know nothing about you individually), our criticism was about your and your organizations politics what your political tendency has been involved with.

now now you know that ruthless tankies like me don't have hearts to break to begin with.

I should've used a smiley cos I meant the "cue gangster" comment as a stab at humour like.

it's just a very low thing to say to any Irish republican, since it was Thatcher who invented the criminal line.

[Devrim]

it's just a very low thing to say to any Irish republican, since it was Thatcher who invented the criminal line.

PRC-UTE should read up on his recent Irish history. The struggle over 'criminalisation' (the removal of special category status for Republican prisoners) began in 1976 under a Labour government. Thatcher became Prime Minister three years later.

However, the allegations of gangsterism do not stem from left communists alone. They IRSP was commonly referred to in West Belfast as 'I Rob Shops and Post-Offices, and was well known for its gangster like activities.

I would suggest that whilst refuting allegations of gangsterism 'PRC-UTE' take the time to explain to people who John O'Grady and Barbara McAlorum were. People can decide for themselves if this is the sort of behaviour they expect from revolutionaries, or in a 'Godfather' film.

Of course we don't believe that every supporter of the IRSP is a gangster. We believe that they like all 'national liberation' groups have a tendency to degenerate into gangsterism whatever high minded ideals they started with.

Theoretically, it is possible to imagine a nationalist group that doesn't involve itself in these type of activities. In practice it is rarely if ever found, and in the case of the INLA, the gangster tendencies were very strong indeed.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

PRC-UTE should read up on his recent Irish history. The struggle over 'criminalisation' (the removal of special category status for Republican prisoners) began in 1976 under a Labour government. Thatcher became Prime Minister three years later.

However, the allegations of gangsterism do not stem from left communists alone. They IRSP was commonly referred to in West Belfast as 'I Rob Shops and Post-Offices, and was well known for its gangster like activities.

I would suggest that whilst refuting allegations of gangsterism 'PRC-UTE' take the time to explain to people who John O'Grady and Barbara McAlorum were. People can decide for themselves if this is the sort of behaviour they expect from revolutionaries, or in a 'Godfather' film.

Of course we don't believe that every supporter of the IRSP is a gangster. We believe that they like all 'national liberation' groups have a tendency to degenerate into gangsterism whatever high minded ideals they started with.

Theoretically, it is possible to imagine a nationalist group that doesn't involve itself in these type of activities. In practice it is rarely if ever found, and in the case of the INLA, the gangster tendencies were very strong indeed.

Devrim

I've seen more pro-INLA graffiti than anti-INLA graffiti in my time. CAn I cite this as evidence that the INLA have massive support? :lol: What a silly argument, Devrim. It's quite likely to have been painted up by criminals/lumpen elements who feared the irps (many tags I've seen against republicans will also read 'hoods rule', 'up the hoods' and so on). that's not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms to be made, or that some don't have real genuine grievances with the INLA, however graffiti doesn't prove much.

the rest of your post is just nitpicking dressed up as profound commentary. of course I'm aware that there were previous criminilisation attempts and hunger strikes before Thatcher and '81. So I should have phrased it as 'Thatcher resurrected the criminlisation line'. Sorry, professor.

Though it's funny coming from you espeically to nitpick which section of the bourgeoisie you are repeating the lies of. Aren't they all 100% the same in your view anyway?

There have been some criminals in the ranks of the IRSM, but they were a minority. It would be impossible to keep all criminals out of any organisation. however the INLA is not a criminal organisation. The Gardai have admitted this in their interparliamentery sessions with the British. they said there are no structured links with criminality or drugs. In public, they say another thing as they want to portray all resistance forces as criminals and deny that they are political. I still dont' understand why you choose to repeat the imperialist line that has been discredited.

EDIT: I love the way you use quotes for my username at one time and not another. very cute. some Dev.

[Devrim]

I've seen more pro-INLA graffiti than anti-INLA graffiti in my time. CAn I cite this as evidence that the INLA have massive support? :lol:

I didn't even mention graffiti, but as 'PRC-UTE' says it was common on walls too.

I notice that you don't even attempt to explain who the two people I mentioned were. Should I do it for you?


There have been some criminals in the ranks of the IRSM, but they were a minority. It would be impossible to keep all criminals out of any organisation. however the INLA is not a criminal organisation.

So what you are admitting is that it was an organisation that 'had some criminals in the ranks'. Shall we assume that these were the sort of people who cut off people's body parts and sent them to their wives, or who shot people's nine year old sisters because they had political feuds (within the organisation) with them?


It would be impossible to keep all criminals out of any organisation.

Don't you think that the mode of operation of the organisation has/had something to do with this?


The Gardai have admitted this in their interparliamentery sessions with the British. they said there are no structured links with criminality or drugs.

Oh, I must have been confused, I thought kidnapping, and mutilating people had something to do with criminality. I must have been wrong. Are you trying to tell me it is what socialists do?


EDIT: I love the way you use quotes for my username at one time and not another. very cute. some Dev.

Nothing deliberate, mere sloppiness, in general I use inverted commas for names that don't sound like real names (i.e. I would refer to 'Bob the Builder' as Bob, but you as 'PRC-UTE'. I missed them that is all, no implications intended.

Devrim

[Andropov]

So what you are admitting is that it was an organisation that 'had some criminals in the ranks'. Shall we assume that these were the sort of people who cut off people's body parts and sent them to their wives, or who shot people's nine year old sisters because they had political feuds (within the organisation) with them?

Oh, I must have been confused, I thought kidnapping, and mutilating people had something to do with criminality. I must have been wrong. Are you trying to tell me it is what socialists do?


Ughhh, you sound like an imperial mouth piece.
You really should write for the Sunday World with this kind of crap.
Your post is a concoction of lies, ignorance and innacuracies.

I fail to see the problem with robbing banks and the like?
Guns cost money and bank roberries are a legitimate way in which a national liberation army can raise such funds.

Yes kidnappings occured.
There was mutilations and the like, it was a war.
Certain actions were necessary, not desirable, but necessary.

Finally for the lie of the bunch.
That poor girl that was shot was shot by accident.
Research your material before you post more horsesh!t.
It was ment to be a warning shot through the window which horrifically hit the girl.
It was beyond the word unfortunate, but it was an accident.
Soemthing which doesnt fit into your contorted view of the RSM.

[Devrim]

Finally for the lie of the bunch.
That poor girl that was shot was shot by accident.


There are no lies. These are the sort of 'accidents' that happen when you behave like gangsters.


There was mutilations and the like, it was a war.

They just chopped off body parts by chance did they? And then accidentally slipped them into the post?

Devrim

[Andropov]

There are no lies. These are the sort of 'accidents' that happen when you behave like gangsters.



They just chopped off body parts by chance did they? And then accidentally slipped them into the post?

Devrim

You misrepresent the truth, when you bend the truth it brakes into a million lies.
Yup, all those gangsters willing to die for the cause.
Who are you to question the INLA, some keyboard warrior who throws mud from a distance.
There were some great men in the INLA, men who fought and died for the cause, some who even hunger striked for the cause.
No they didnt chop them off by chance.
They did it for funds, an army needs money.
Unless you intend them to take on the british empire with bows and arrows.
What is quiet ironic is that out of all the attrocities in the Irish conflict you dwell on a man losing a finger.
It is quiet evident for all to see that you have an agenda here.

[Leo]

You misrepresent the truth, when you bend the truth it brakes into a million lies.None of which you have even attempted to demonstrate so far. Every time you start crying "lies, lies!" you end up yourself admitting what has been said were indeed the truth and trying to justify them. Calling something a lie does not make it so.


Who are you to question the INLAThat's a such a mature way to deal with criticism, I am sure you convinced all who is reading this.


It is quiet evident for all to see that you have an agenda here. Because your tiny sect is so important in the middle east, right?

[Andropov]

None of which you have even attempted to demonstrate so far. Every time you start crying "lies, lies!" you end up yourself admitting what has been said were indeed the truth and trying to justify them. Calling something a lie does not make it so.

That's a such a mature way to deal with criticism, I am sure you convinced all who is reading this.

Because your tiny sect is so important in the middle east, right?

What are you raving about?
Misrepresting the truth is just as much a lie.
Stating that the INLA purposly murdered a young girl because her borther was a scumbag is a lie.
It was an accident.
Something which her very own father accepted from the INLA, he accpeted there apology.
So dont try and twist the truth.

Aye true, it is not. But I guess I did not expect to be reading Imperialist propaganda here.

Our tiny sect? Our tiny sect is the most popular left wing grouping in Ireland. Not much but it is something.

[Sean]

Aye true, it is not. But I guess I did not expect to be reading Imperialist propaganda here.
Calling the INLA scumbags is hardly Imperialist propaganda given that its a view held by some of the Republican community. You can't just blame every criticism on Imperialism, there is some accountability here. However, I certainly don't think that the INLA/IRSP should be singled out here from far far worse groups, and actually Red Revolutionary's explanations are held to be true by the majority of people to my mind.


Our tiny sect? Our tiny sect is the most popular left wing grouping in Ireland. Not much but it is something.
Yeah, but it is a tiny sect.

[Andropov]

Calling the INLA scumbags is hardly Imperialist propaganda given that its a view held by some of the Republican community. You can't just blame every criticism on Imperialism, there is some accountability here. However, I certainly don't think that the INLA/IRSP should be singled out here from far far worse groups, and actually Red Revolutionary's explanations are held to be true by the majority of people to my mind.


Yeah, but it is a tiny sect.

TBH I dont know anyone within the Republican community that calls the INLA scumbags.
But who made such lies and fabrications?
It was not the Nationalist or Republican community, it was Imperialists and Imperialist apologists.

[PRC-UTE]

Calling the INLA scumbags is hardly Imperialist propaganda given that its a view held by some of the Republican community. You can't just blame every criticism on Imperialism, there is some accountability here. However, I certainly don't think that the INLA/IRSP should be singled out here from far far worse groups, and actually Red Revolutionary's explanations are held to be true by the majority of people to my mind.


some may hold that view but to offer a bit of balance here, in many working class areas I've spent considerable time in like the markets or the short strand, strabane, derry we're welcomed quite warmly and respected. some of our martyrs like Ta Power, Devine, Gino and O'Hara are like folk heroes still.

there really isn't the kind of hostility to the irps that many leftists on the internet attempt to portray. I've run into more of the opposite, tbh.

[PRC-UTE]

Don't you think that the mode of operation of the organisation has/had something to do with this?

No, I don't. The things you refer to happened a long time ago and in the overall history of the IRSM weren't typical. Most volunteers I've known never had anything to do with criminality. Oh, I know you're going to say they robbed places, but that was for the movement not personal gain and I don't see why it matters to a socialist if they rob post offices.

[Jorge Miguel]

Because your tiny sect is so important in the middle east, right?
I love when the left come out with this. :laugh: Wise up. Is the International Communist Current going to lead us to victory?

[Eros]

Our tiny sect? Our tiny sect is the most popular left wing grouping in Ireland. Not much but it is something.

What about the Socialist Party? How do you measure this support? The IRSP has no elected representatives nor, I would imagine, is it capable of gaining any. The IRSP also has no base within the trade union movement. There may well be support for the INLA in certain communities in Belfast and Derry but that's a different matter. The organisation's reputation is in tatters in the south and has been for literally decades. The politics of the IRSP are mainly nationalist in content anyway, with perhaps (at best) a 'Marxist influence'.

[Leo]

I love when the left come out with this. :laugh: Wise up. Is the International Communist Current going to lead us to victory?

Nothing of sorts has been said; only the working class itself can lead the way to victory.

I was merely pointing out to how ridiculous it was to accuse communists from the middle east for having "an agenda" against your tiny group in a single country kilometers away.

[Pogue]

Nationalism has no place in the proltetarian struggle.

[Jorge Miguel]

Nationalism has no place in the proltetarian struggle.Explain.:wub:

[Soldier of life]

Nationalism has no place in the proltetarian struggle.

would you not say certain types of nationalism in certain situations is progressive and can that be harnessed and moulded to be progressive?nationalist sentiment is a powerful anti-imperialist tool imo and can be utilised and should not just be cast aside as useless

[Soldier of life]

What about the Socialist Party? How do you measure this support? The IRSP has no elected representatives nor, I would imagine, is it capable of gaining any. The IRSP also has no base within the trade union movement. There may well be support for the INLA in certain communities in Belfast and Derry but that's a different matter. The organisation's reputation is in tatters in the south and has been for literally decades. The politics of the IRSP are mainly nationalist in content anyway, with perhaps (at best) a 'Marxist influence'.


The politics of the IRSP are marxist/leninist, no matter how ou would like to label them. And since when was electoral success the most important thing and decisive thing for a revolutionary party? If the IRSP conentrated efforts on getting an elected representative its quite possible they would get one,since when was this the aim though?the SP had joe higgins but how relevent are they in working class estates

[Eros]

The politics of the IRSP are marxist/leninist, no matter how ou would like to label them. And since when was electoral success the most important thing and decisive thing for a revolutionary party? If the IRSP conentrated efforts on getting an elected representative its quite possible they would get one,since when was this the aim though?the SP had joe higgins but how relevent are they in working class estates

A lot more relevant than the IRSP, that's for sure. How many people have even heard of the IRSP in working class estates south of the border? If they have heard of the IRSM at all it's usually what they've read about the INLA in rags like the Sunday World or Evening Herald. I never said that contesting elections was the be-all-and-end-all but RR was claiming that they were the largest leftist group in Ireland and I was just enquiring as to how he gauged this support. According to the political secretary of the IRSP the party is only "Marxist influenced". What do you mean by Marxist-Leninist? Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, Hoxhaist....?

[progressive_lefty]

PRC-UTE should read up on his recent Irish history. The struggle over 'criminalisation' (the removal of special category status for Republican prisoners) began in 1976 under a Labour government. Thatcher became Prime Minister three years later.

However, the allegations of gangsterism do not stem from left communists alone. They IRSP was commonly referred to in West Belfast as 'I Rob Shops and Post-Offices, and was well known for its gangster like activities.

I would suggest that whilst refuting allegations of gangsterism 'PRC-UTE' take the time to explain to people who John O'Grady and Barbara McAlorum were. People can decide for themselves if this is the sort of behaviour they expect from revolutionaries, or in a 'Godfather' film.

Of course we don't believe that every supporter of the IRSP is a gangster. We believe that they like all 'national liberation' groups have a tendency to degenerate into gangsterism whatever high minded ideals they started with.

Theoretically, it is possible to imagine a nationalist group that doesn't involve itself in these type of activities. In practice it is rarely if ever found, and in the case of the INLA, the gangster tendencies were very strong indeed.

Devrim

A common problem, where people not familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland, or Irish history, make bold statements or criticisms.

[PRC-UTE]

A common problem, where people not familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland, or Irish history, make bold statements or criticisms.

ehm, I've been active in the struggle in the occupied six counties and I'm more than familiar with it. I made a slip up by saying Thatcher started the criminalisation policy - I should have said REstarted - and he jumped all over it.

It's a common problem that people shoot their mouth off and make bold statements about other people they know nothing about.

[Jorge Miguel]

It's a common problem that people shoot their mouth off and make bold statements about other people they know nothing about.You're being conservative with your criticism. Devrim is posting in a manner which would make the Sunday World blush. :blushing:

[Andropov]

A lot more relevant than the IRSP, that's for sure. How many people have even heard of the IRSP in working class estates south of the border? If they have heard of the IRSM at all it's usually what they've read about the INLA in rags like the Sunday World or Evening Herald. I never said that contesting elections was the be-all-and-end-all but RR was claiming that they were the largest leftist group in Ireland and I was just enquiring as to how he gauged this support. According to the political secretary of the IRSP the party is only "Marxist influenced". What do you mean by Marxist-Leninist? Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, Hoxhaist....?

You had to stick in south of the border didnt you?
Because the working class in the south are generally untapped by Socialist parties, including the SP.
You know nothing of the IRSP in Belfast and Derry.
In Belfast the IRSP has enormous support from the communtiy for spearheading the fight for a non sectarian housing policy.
But where were the SP?
Off ponitificating about how trendy they were and how the IRSP wasnt conforming to their every dogma and rehtoric they are spoonfed.

Not to mention Derry where they have enormous support.
Where community initiatives such as providing garages and cars for the youth to work on.
Such communtiy initiatives that the SP would never under take because their trendy left upper class members are completely divorced from the reality of the situation in working class estates.
The support of the IRSP was highlighted when Peggy was nearly elected in the last elections.
Face it the SP is irrelevant in the North and as good as in the south.

Granted the IRSP are not as big in the South but that is because it was primarily a northern based party.
Things are beginning to change as Dublin sets its house in order.
And I have no doubt that the IRSP will continue to be relevant to the working class, something you can only pontificate about on internet boards.

[Devrim]

You're being conservative with your criticism. Devrim is posting in a manner which would make the Sunday World blush. :blushing:

It is a bit of a poor argument, isn't it? I am shooting my mouth off about something that I know nothing about. It doesn't answer any of the political questions raised at all.

Please point out one factual error that I have made when you say I would make the 'Sunday World blush'.

I don't think that it is really the point, and wouldn't validate or invalidate the arguments made, but actually I lived in Northern Ireland during the worst part of the 'troubles' in the early 1970s, and I have a fair idea of what I am talking about.

Devrim

[Jorge Miguel]

It is a bit of a poor argument, isn't it? I am shooting my mouth off about something that I know nothing about. It doesn't answer any of the political questions raised at all.

Please point out one factual error that I have made when you say I would make the 'Sunday World blush'.

I don't think that it is really the point, and wouldn't validate or invalidate the arguments made, but actually I lived in Northern Ireland during the worst part of the 'troubles' in the early 1970s, and I have a fair idea of what I am talking about.

Devrim
I didn't say you were 'shouting your mouth' off. I'm just pointing out that the whole 'gangster' element is largely a dream of the press. You can talk about living here all you want, I was a member of the IRSP for some time and held quite a few positions of responsibility. Today, I disagree with most of what the IRSP is coming out with but I don't fall into this nonsense about 'gangsterism' - it's political line and content that are important not 'gangsterism'. Criminality is only a consequence and should therefore not be the primary source of disagreement.

[Jorge Miguel]

In Belfast the IRSP has enormous support from the communtiy for spearheading the fight for a non sectarian housing policy.
But where were the SP?
Off ponitificating about how trendy they were and how the IRSP wasnt conforming to their every dogma and rehtoric they are spoonfed.'Enormous' is a bit of an overstatement to say the least. The IRSP don't have 'enormous' support anywhere, nevermind Belfast. The support that does exist for the RSM is for the INLA - 'I like drug dealers, go and shoot a few more.' In my opinion, this support is based on nostalgia and actually undercuts any concept of an independent working class movement.


Not to mention Derry where they have enormous support.
Where community initiatives such as providing garages and cars for the youth to work on.
Such communtiy initiatives that the SP would never under take because their trendy left upper class members are completely divorced from the reality of the situation in working class estates.
The support of the IRSP was highlighted when Peggy was nearly elected in the last elections.
Face it the SP is irrelevant in the North and as good as in the south.

Again, there's not 'enormous' support in Derry. There's more compared to other areas and the irps are well organised, disciplined and political in Derry but there's no use lying that their support is greater than what it is. Regarding SP, I agree to some extent. Regarding the being 'irelevent' - they currently have more elected representatives than the IRSP have ever had at any given moment. But this debate really is irrelevent - it is political line that matters not who can tell the biggest lies about their organisation's influence.



Things are beginning to change as Dublin sets its house in order.
And I have no doubt that the IRSP will continue to be relevant to the working class, something you can only pontificate about on internet boards.
What do the working class in Dublin think about the INLA? And that's hardly a press concocted lie either. The INLA in Dublin are a politically deprived rump of criminals. The IRSP in Dublin is little better.

[Devrim]

Today, I disagree with most of what the IRSP is coming out with but I don't fall into this nonsense about 'gangsterism' -

So do you think that kidnapping people and cutting off their fingers, and murdering people's family members in feuds is the way that socialist organisations should behave?

Or do you think it is more reminiscent of gangsterism?



it's political line and content that are important not 'gangsterism'. Criminality is only a consequence and should therefore not be the primary source of disagreement.

To a certain extent I agree with you. The 'gangsterism' is a consequence of the political line. National liberation organisations have a general tendency to drift into that behaviour. It is though as you point out only a consequence of the 'political line and content'.

And the political line and content is one of anti-working class nationalism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The INLA in Dublin are a politically deprived rump of criminals. The IRSP in Dublin is little better.

And this is from the person who denies that they are gangsters.

Devrim

[bcbm]

Who are you to question the INLA, some keyboard warrior who throws mud from a distance.

Yeah, anybody who would dare to question INLA are just internet warriors who've never struggled a day in their life. Get over your fucking self.


There were some great men in the INLA, men who fought and died for the cause, some who even hunger striked for the cause.

People have thrown grenades into crowded shopping centers for "the cause" (socialism) too, are they beyond critique? Where is the line? Lots of good people do stupid things in the name of some greater good. Being a good person and having a good cause doesn't mean you start shitting gold.

[Jorge Miguel]

So do you think that kidnapping people and cutting off their fingers, and murdering people's family members in feuds is the way that socialist organisations should behave?

Or do you think it is more reminiscent of gangsterism?'Gangsterism' is a hysterical media term, the role of Marxists is to provide critical analysis, not to parrot the Tories with moralistic nonsense. The term 'gangsterism' implies that those activities mentioned were apolitical - carried out by people with a penchant for nothing but violence. The individual who murdered Barbara McAlorum took his own life because of what he did, this is certainly not the hallmark of a 'gangster' who got turned on by killing people. He wanted to kill the individual who had murdered his comrade at the behest of British agents - the movement had to protect itself and as a consequence a nine year old child was murdered.

I am not trying to justify any INLA activity and anyone who does is going down the wrong path but these crimes happened as a result of the war situation in Ireland. This ground has already been covered already between yourself and members of the IRSM but in my own opinion it's of no consequence wether McAlorum's sister was murdered by accident or wether O'Hare was a member of the INLA at the time - they are all products of the failure of Republicanism and should be viewed in this context alone.

[Jorge Miguel]

People have thrown grenades into crowded shopping centers for "the cause" (socialism) too, are they beyond critique? Where is the line? Lots of good people do stupid things in the name of some greater good. Being a good person and having a good cause doesn't mean you start shitting gold.Good point, maybe you should question yourself.

[Devrim]

'Gangsterism' is a hysterical media term, the role of Marxists is to provide critical analysis, not to parrot the Tories with moralistic nonsense.

There is an analysis. The fact is though that some of the things that the bourgeoisie media says are true. I generally trust them on the football scores for example. I don't think that it is about parroting the media. They wouldn't have been able to get away with labelling the RSM as gangsters if there was not some truth in it.


The term 'gangsterism' implies that those activities mentioned were apolitical - carried out by people with a penchant for nothing but violence.

I don't see the bit about violence at all. I see it as being about business.

Devrim

[Jorge Miguel]

Which business?

[Pogue]

Getting power and moeny and trying to find the way out of your dituation when you're underground and udnerfoudned in a failed movement which never really had any chances to acheive anything because it was too gung ho and fixated on fetishising violence by means of childish poses with guns for photos and bombing anything which even sounded like British Army

[Soldier of life]

Getting power and moeny and trying to find the way out of your dituation when you're underground and udnerfoudned in a failed movement which never really had any chances to acheive anything because it was too gung ho and fixated on fetishising violence by means of childish poses with guns for photos and bombing anything which even sounded like British Army
nice rant, maybe some debate next time

[Soldier of life]

What do the working class in Dublin think about the INLA? And that's hardly a press concocted lie either. The INLA in Dublin are a politically deprived rump of criminals. The IRSP in Dublin is little better.

I agree about the INLA in dublin,they are a PR nightmare and should be disbanded,there is no need for them tbh.However i would definately disagree on Dublin irsp,to call them little better than a politically deprived rump of criminals is way over the top and completely wrong,Dublin IRSP have some very political people in their ranks

[PRC-UTE]

I know probably every member of Dublin IRSP, have stayed in most their homes and spent a lot of time around them. They're sound activists involved in several campaigns and work in the unions.

[Devrim]

I know probably every member of Dublin IRSP, have stayed in most their homes and spent a lot of time around them. They're sound activists involved in several campaigns and work in the unions.

Well yes, but to put not too fine a point on it you think that bombing discos is sound.

Devrim

[Dóchas]

Well yes, but to put not to fine a point on it you think that bombing discos is sound.

Devrim

depends what music they are playing :laugh:

[PRC-UTE]

Well yes, but to put not too fine a point on it you think that bombing discos is sound.

Devrim

Should read: "you think bombing occupation forces is sound."

And I do under certain conditions- however I don't fetishise the issue of violence to the extent that you or the bourgeois moralists do. I'm more interested in the current campaigns were involved in over issues like health care, education cuts, and building the unions, all of which the irps are involved in throughout the 26c.

[Jorge Miguel]

Devrim,

Which business?

[Jorge Miguel]

I agree about the INLA in dublin,they are a PR nightmare and should be disbanded,there is no need for them tbh.However i would definately disagree on Dublin irsp,to call them little better than a politically deprived rump of criminals is way over the top and completely wrong,Dublin IRSP have some very political people in their ranksI too have met some good people from the IRSP in Dublin, but my own experience centers around a certain individual (a member of the IRSP leadership at the time) who to be honest, would give the media credibility if ordinary workers seen their behavior in city center bars. I was threatened by one of them one time and met with a barriage of abuse on two other ocassions, for no reason whatsoever other than machoism - that is the sort of people militarism attracts and it's a shame because it was to the detriment to the rest of your organisation in that area.

[Devrim]

Which business?

Take smuggling for a start.

Devrim

[Devrim]

And I do under certain conditions- however I don't fetishise the issue of violence to the extent that you or the bourgeois moralists do. I'm more interested in the current campaigns were involved in over issues like health care, education cuts, and building the unions, all of which the irps are involved in throughout the 26c.

you fetishise it absolutely. You make a cult of the armed struggle. It is the opposite side of the coin to the blanket condemnations of violence by bourgeois moralists.

Communists look violence in a completely different manner. Maybe starting with questions like does this build or hinder the building of class unity, would be a good place for you to start. Maybe the answer to that question would lead you to think about which class interests are being served by this violence.

Devrim

[Jorge Miguel]

Take smuggling for a start.

Devrim
Evidence?

[Devrim]

Topulli, I am not running an argument to 'prove' that the INLA are involved in this or that branch of criminality. You yourself stated in this thread, 'The INLA in Dublin are a politically deprived rump of criminals'. I am pretty sure that they are involved in things like Tobacco smuggeling for example. I would be really surprised if it turned out they weren't. It might be so, but I doubt it.

Devrim

[Jorge Miguel]

I'm not asking you to prove things because I'm defending the INLA, I'm asking you because it's important that whatever conclusion we reach is on a principled Marxist analysis not haphazard claims that 'must' be true.

[Devrim]

No, I am pretty sure it is true from my own knowledge. 'Proving' it is a different matter. You can accept it or reject it. There isn't a lot I can do about that.

Devrim

[Soldier of life]

No, I am pretty sure it is true from my own knowledge. 'Proving' it is a different matter. You can accept it or reject it. There isn't a lot I can do about that.

Devrim

sure by that standard i could say you are a peadophile,i have no evidence but im pretty sure you are from my own knowledge,you can accept it or reject it there isnt a lot i can do about it:blushing:wheres the conviction or even a solitary charge like?and from someone who would claim the INLA are riddled with informers no doubt why is this so that they cant secure a conviction or even charge people?stop with your pointless slanderous posts with no foundation,and leave those kids alone:wub:

[Soldier of life]

you fetishise it absolutely. You make a cult of the armed struggle. It is the opposite side of the coin to the blanket condemnations of violence by bourgeois moralists.

Communists look violence in a completely different manner. Maybe starting with questions like does this build or hinder the building of class unity, would be a good place for you to start. Maybe the answer to that question would lead you to think about which class interests are being served by this violence.

Devrim
Such tripe,the working class are divided in the occupied 6 by a sectarian divide created and retained by the british imperialist presence on the island of ireland.sectarianism here is a british import,it is that which divides the working class and to turn away from an armed confrontation with imperialism if the prevailing conditions allowed for it is reformist and plain hippy crap.

and who is makign a fetish out of anything you arrogant twat,arms can be an important part of a revolutionary group,thats not a fetish thats reality.the inla are on a ceasefire for 10 years,is that makign a fetish out of violence?you know why they called that ceasefire,because it didnt advance our struggle.doesnt sound liek a fetish to me,if it was no doubt the guns would have continued firing to the detriment of the struggle,sounds more liek a principalled political position to me

[Hessian Peel]

I know probably every member of Dublin IRSP, have stayed in most their homes and spent a lot of time around them. They're sound activists involved in several campaigns and work in the unions.

There are others though who clearly don't match that description.

[Hessian Peel]

Such tripe,the working class are divided in the occupied 6 by a sectarian divide created and retained by the british imperialist presence on the island of ireland.sectarianism here is a british import,it is that which divides the working class and to turn away from an armed confrontation with imperialism if the prevailing conditions allowed for it is reformist and plain hippy crap.

The INLA is involved in criminality, but whether that criminal activity is damaging to the interests of the IRSP and the Irish working class is another matter (I would argue that it is - there's no reason for the INLA to be active at all in the current political climate).


and who is makign a fetish out of anything you arrogant twat,arms can be an important part of a revolutionary group,thats not a fetish thats reality.the inla are on a ceasefire for 10 years,is that makign a fetish out of violence?you know why they called that ceasefire,because it didnt advance our struggle.doesnt sound liek a fetish to me,if it was no doubt the guns would have continued firing to the detriment of the struggle,sounds more liek a principalled political position to me

They're still too active though.

[Devrim]

sure by that standard i could say you are a peadophile,i have no evidence but im pretty sure you are from my own knowledge,you can accept it or reject it there isnt a lot i can do about it:blushing:wheres the conviction or even a solitary charge like?and from someone who would claim the INLA are riddled with informers no doubt why is this so that they cant secure a conviction or even charge people?stop with your pointless slanderous posts with no foundation,and leave those kids alone:wub:

I think it is clear to everyone on this thread that the INLA is involved in criminality. You denying it doesn't make it not so, nor does calling somebody who you have never met a paedophile.


Such tripe,the working class are divided in the occupied 6 by a sectarian divide created and retained by the british imperialist presence on the island of ireland.sectarianism here is a british import,it is that which divides the working class and to turn away from an armed confrontation with imperialism if the prevailing conditions allowed for it is reformist and plain hippy crap.

The question is whether the INLA acts to reinforce these divisions or break them down. I believe it is the former.

I think that the important thing here though is that the RSM supporters on this thread have rejected even the possibility of the idea of a united working class.



and who is makign a fetish out of anything you arrogant twat,arms can be an important part of a revolutionary group,thats not a fetish thats reality.the inla are on a ceasefire for 10 years,is that makign a fetish out of violence?you know why they called that ceasefire,because it didnt advance our struggle.doesnt sound liek a fetish to me,if it was no doubt the guns would have continued firing to the detriment of the struggle,sounds more liek a principalled political position to me

Seems like a pragmatic acceptance of the situation to me. I think it is quite evident that the IRSP fetishes the armed struggle. People in any doubt can take a look at their website.

Devrim

[Hessian Peel]

I think that the important thing here though is that the RSM supporters on this thread have rejected even the possibility of the idea of a united working class.

Well, speaking as an éirígí supporter I'm certainly not remotely interested in 'working class unity' if it means capitulating to Loyalism.


I think it is quite evident that the IRSP fetishes the armed struggle. People in any doubt can take a look at their website. Really? I just see recognition of the sacrifice of INLA and IRSP activists.

[Leo]

you arrogant twat

Consider this a verbal warning for flaming and offensive language, which is against the board guidelines.

[Devrim]

Well, speaking as an éirígí supporter I'm certainly not remotely interested in 'working class unity' if it means capitulating to Loyalism.

I am not suggesting in any way that it means 'capitulating to loyalism'. There can't be class unity without the vast majority of the protestant working class breaking with loyalism.

The question is whether you can bomb them into breaking with loyalism. I don't think that you can.

Devrim

[Hessian Peel]

I am not suggesting in any way that it means 'capitulating to loyalism'. There can't be class unity without the vast majority of the protestant working class breaking with loyalism.

The question is whether you can bomb them into breaking with loyalism. I don't think that you can.

Devrim

Neither do I.

[Redmau5]

In Belfast the IRSP has enormous support from the communtiy for spearheading the fight for a non sectarian housing policy.
But where were the SP?
Off ponitificating about how trendy they were and how the IRSP wasnt conforming to their every dogma and rehtoric they are spoonfed.

Where is this massive support? I've lived in west Belfast all my life and I've certainly never seen it. I'm not denying that the INLA do have some support, but it's hardly "massive".

[progressive_lefty]

ehm, I've been active in the struggle in the occupied six counties and I'm more than familiar with it. I made a slip up by saying Thatcher started the criminalisation policy - I should have said REstarted - and he jumped all over it.

It's a common problem that people shoot their mouth off and make bold statements about other people they know nothing about.

You misunderstood..

[Saorsa]

Out of curiosity, could I ask a question of someone from the Irish CWI? I've heard that the CWI in the 6 Counties works with the Progressive Unionist Party (and even the DUP!), and one guy I spoke to told me they were more willing to be associated with the PUP than with the Republican groups. I can't find a whole lot of inforation about this on the internet, so could someone tell me if it's true or not, and if it is could they explain the position?

[redflag32]

PRC-UTE should read up on his recent Irish history. The struggle over 'criminalisation' (the removal of special category status for Republican prisoners) began in 1976 under a Labour government. Thatcher became Prime Minister three years later.

However, the allegations of gangsterism do not stem from left communists alone. They IRSP was commonly referred to in West Belfast as 'I Rob Shops and Post-Offices, and was well known for its gangster like activities.

I would suggest that whilst refuting allegations of gangsterism 'PRC-UTE' take the time to explain to people who John O'Grady and Barbara McAlorum were. People can decide for themselves if this is the sort of behaviour they expect from revolutionaries, or in a 'Godfather' film.

Of course we don't believe that every supporter of the IRSP is a gangster. We believe that they like all 'national liberation' groups have a tendency to degenerate into gangsterism whatever high minded ideals they started with.

Theoretically, it is possible to imagine a nationalist group that doesn't involve itself in these type of activities. In practice it is rarely if ever found, and in the case of the INLA, the gangster tendencies were very strong indeed.

Devrim

Your point that the IRSM has acted in a way that was counter-revolutionary in the past would be accepted by the membership of the IRSM today. They don't refute this.

The Ta power document was the IRSMs acknowledgment of its mistakes in the past and its determination to sort the causes of these mistakes out so they don’t happen again in the future. Apart from the document you can talk to almost any of the current membership and they will agree with you that in the past the movement acted in a way that wasn’t productive to the working class struggle. So, they agree with you on this point at least.

What it seems they don’t agree on with you is the reasons why it happened and if we can fix it so it wont happen again if similar circumstances pop up.

The counter-revolutionary activities from the past which we are talking about would be the membership’s participation in an "internal feud" between the IPLO and the IRSM from which many people lost their lives. So let’s deal with that first.

The IRSM acknowledge that the feud was counter-revolutionary; however they take the position that it was not an "internal feud" but more of a purge by the IRSM of criminals from its ranks. When we study it in a Marxist way, without the tools of a moralistic conservative mind we notice its true nature. Viewed as a purge and not as a "bloody feud" we begin to realise that what happened from within the IRSM has occurred in many left organisations. The purge is a vitally important tool for the revolutionary organisation and it has been used many times in the past and will again. So that’s the first disagreement, the trendy left sees an "internal feud" the IRSM sees a Purge.

However, the IRSMs purge took a militaristic tone and its this which seems to upset the trendy left, and there not to be laughed at for this. Nobody should take lightly the act of ending someone’s life.

The IRSM also sees things differently than the trendy left in relation to the militaristic nature of this internal purge. The IRSM believe that it took on a militaristic tone because of the conditions at that time, not as the trendy left believe, because of an inevitable regress to barbarism which all national liberation struggles will have.

This internal feud and attack from counter-revolutionaries occurred right slap bang during a militarist attack on Imperialism in Ireland. At a time when the British state colluded with Loyalists to plant bombs in the Free State to kill civilians, this was not a pretty time.

This internal purge, they believe, was so violent because at the time of its happening the members were active in a bloody war with the British army. While others believe that it was the militaristic nature of an organisation active in a national liberation struggle which was the cause of this "bloody feud" the IRSM seem to believe that it was down to the conditions at that time and the aggressive nature of the bourgeois counter revolutionaries who were physically attacking the IRSM.

I guess if you disagree on the actual true nature of the problem then you’re just never going to agree from then on in. The IRSM and the trendy left disagree on what the problem essentially was and why it took the form it did, so therefore any attempt to agree on a way to solve it will result in absolute failure. Maybe that’s the key here. Somebody has to re-asses their analysis of what this problem truly was and why it took the form it did. I mean, somebody is obviously wrong and somebody is obviously right in their analysis of it. All other disagreements flow from the basic analysis. If you use an analysis which is blinkered by moralistic or conservative opinion then that analysis will not be a Marxist one. My problem with the trendy left is that they do precisely this. For all their slaggin of "gangsterism" and "bloody feuds" the trendy left hasn’t even started to come up with a genuine Marxist position on this problem because their basic analysis uses the tools of un-Marxist conservative thought.

While I believe the IRSM has acted in a way which was counter productive in the past I don’t believe that just because some people lost their lives (which is tragic) that I should get all emotional and let my "morals" dictate my thoughts. If I was to allow my emotions rule my thought processes I would be using the technique of the conservative and I would ultimately come out with a conservative analysis and I might even start talking like one, with denunciations of "gangersterism".

I believe the main problem the IRSM faced back then, as today, is an organisational one. National liberation movements, in my view, are not inherently going to degenerate into gangsterism. The provisional’s managed a successful enough militaristic war for 30 years without much un-sanctioned "gangsterism". The IRSM was attacked right from the begining we must remember also, so most of its history has been about defending itself from physical assault and being active in a military war against the British.

Yes, ex-members/members chopped peoples fingers off, yes ex/members might be using the name of the INLA for personal gain, yes Dublin needs to stand up to the militarists who have managed to hang on till now and yes, maybe the IRSM needs to re-think the role of militarism in the working class struggle in Ireland today.

The point is that most of the current membership agrees with all of the above. They agree with most of the slander the trendy left throws a them. But their analysis has turned these issues into problems of the day and not into reasons for their inevitable structural and political failure.

[Jorge Miguel]

Out of curiosity, could I ask a question of someone from the Irish CWI? I've heard that the CWI in the 6 Counties works with the Progressive Unionist Party (and even the DUP!), and one guy I spoke to told me they were more willing to be associated with the PUP than with the Republican groups. I can't find a whole lot of inforation about this on the internet, so could someone tell me if it's true or not, and if it is could they explain the position?Yes, they work with the PUP. They toured double sectarian murderer Billy Hutchinson around Britain.

[PRC-UTE]

There are others though who clearly don't match that description.

actual members of the IRSP? I've met loads of eejit supporters who called themselves members but weren't at all, probably never attended a meeting or paid dues.

[Hessian Peel]

Aye I suppose.

It's hard to tell who's a member from the outside looking in, naturally.

Militarists and their cheerleaders are definitely holding things back though comrade.

[Devrim]

If you use an analysis which is blinkered by moralistic or conservative opinion then that analysis will not be a Marxist one. My problem with the trendy left is that they do precisely this. For all their slaggin of "gangsterism" and "bloody feuds" the trendy left hasn’t even started to come up with a genuine Marxist position on this problem because their basic analysis uses the tools of un-Marxist conservative thought.

I am not quite sure what the writer means by 'trendy left'. It isn't much of a Marxist analysis though.


Your point that the IRSM has acted in a way that was counter-revolutionary in the past would be accepted by the membership of the IRSM today. They don't refute this.

It seems to me that it is not really accepted;


The IRSM acknowledge that the feud was counter-revolutionary; however they take the position that it was not an "internal feud" but more of a purge by the IRSM of criminals from its ranks. When we study it in a Marxist way, without the tools of a moralistic conservative mind we notice its true nature. Viewed as a purge and not as a "bloody feud" we begin to realise that what happened from within the IRSM has occurred in many left organisations. The purge is a vitally important tool for the revolutionary organisation and it has been used many times in the past and will again.


National liberation movements, in my view, are not inherently going to degenerate into gangsterism.

I think that they have a tendency to, and that this tendency is well proven by history. It is, however, not the point. The point is that national liberation movements in themselves are anti-working class in that the interests of the nation and the working class are diametrically opposed.

Organisations like the RSM are not, in our opinion, anti-working class because they behave like gangsters. They have a tendency to behave like gangsters because they are anti-working class.

The gangsterism is a reflection of the problem, not its root.

Devrim

[Jorge Miguel]

actual members of the IRSP? I've met loads of eejit supporters who called themselves members but weren't at all, probably never attended a meeting or paid dues.The INLA in Dublin do not meet the description of the IRSP you provided - they are quite the opposite infact and the INLA in Dublin consistently through their militarist aventurism push the credibility of the IRSP further and further into the ground.

[redflag32]

[quote]I am not quite sure what the writer means by 'trendy left'. It isn't much of a Marxist analysis though.

Point taken




It seems to me that it is not really accepted;

Well all i can say here is that i think your wrong on that point.




I think that they have a tendency to, and that this tendency is well proven by history. It is, however, not the point. The point is that national liberation movements in themselves are anti-working class in that the interests of the nation and the working class are diametrically opposed.

Organisations like the RSM are not, in our opinion, anti-working class because they behave like gangsters. They have a tendency to behave like gangsters because they are anti-working class.

The gangsterism is a reflection of the problem, not its root.




So, the RSM have a tendency to act like gansters because they are anti-working class and this anti-working class nature stems from the fact that the RSM is a national liberation movement?

Could you explain to me why exactly you believe that national liberation movements are anti-working class and why you think the interests of the nation and the working class are diametrically opposed.

Im genuinely interested in other peoples opinions so this isnt me saying im right and your wrong. Ive just never really got why people believed the right to self-determination to be an anti-working class ideal.

[PRC-UTE]

Aye I suppose.

It's hard to tell who's a member from the outside looking in, naturally.

Militarists and their cheerleaders are definitely holding things back though comrade.

agree 100%

[PRC-UTE]

The INLA in Dublin do not meet the description of the IRSP you provided - they are quite the opposite infact and the INLA in Dublin consistently through their militarist aventurism push the credibility of the IRSP further and further into the ground.

what I'm getting it is people who were referred to as being in the INLA esp in the media weren't actually members. I agree completely about it hurting the IRSP's credibility, however it's easy to get carried away and exagerate this issue as the reformist and trendy lefties usually do; the antics of some people aren't stopping the party from carrying out some important political work and activism.

anyway, those people aren't going to be a problem anymore

[redflag32]

Aye I suppose.


It's hard to tell who's a member from the outside looking in, naturally.

Militarists and their cheerleaders are definitely holding things back though comrade.

Yea, I would agree with that. But for me what counts are not how many demos Dublin IRSP attends but how radical is their analysis of the Irish situation and their plan of attack.

I’m not a big fan of campaignism anyway; I think it’s a big waste of time, so we can’t judge Dublin IRSPs "political strength" by their physical presence at demos. If militarism is holding back the IRSPs ability to a Marxist party then it’s a problem, just as much as reformism in a party would be an equal problem. But it can be overcome and I don’t think the problem is that big in Dublin that it can’t be overcome.

Apart from the summer gone, which was a nightmare for Dublin IRSP, the guns have been more or less silent. Republicanism will always have an element of militarism within it. Its ability to create for itself a respected history and culture through commemorations and celebrations of important historical moments places it in a good position to act on behalf of the people as a real historical entity. The various socialist/communist movements don’t have this legitimacy and I find it hard to believe that the Irish people will ever rise for the ideals of Lenin or Marx solely. The social revolution in Ireland will more than likely take shape firstly from within a movement which is more "national" (not nationalism).

So maybe we shouldn’t be trying to rid Republicanism of all of its militaristic baggage and the commemorations that go with it. This aspect of Republicanism is widely respected in the working class, even if they don’t involve themselves in it. This militarist culture is a radical confrontation with the state and we shouldn’t be so quick to try and get rid of it. Yes I know that armed struggle is over and its time to lead with our minds, and i'm happy about that fact. But just because its time to put down the gun and lead with our minds doesn’t mean we have to abandon the usefulness of militarist culture completely.

I think that some people, for whatever reason, will just always have a problem with the Republican tradition. What always makes me wary of those who denounce the Republican tradition is the fact that they don’t even try to encourage the left republicans to be "more like them". From their eyes they should be trying to encourage a left turn from within republicanism, just like they are trying to do generally with the public, but they don’t. They try to crush the republican movement, even the left republicans. I find this very odd.

[Hessian Peel]

Personally I believe that the negative effects of militarism far outweigh the positive ones in the absence of armed conflict. Militarism produces the kind of membership organisations like the 32 CSM and RSF find themselves with. They're as useless as the reformist, economist leftists who oppose Left Republicanism from the other end of the political spectrum.

éirígí (in my view) have taken the correct line on militarism by discarding it. The party membership is instead focussed on building up a strong, disciplined and principled revolutionary movement to organise amongst the working class of Ireland. This will be a long process and currently éirígí's activity is limited to the usual "campaignism" of the rest of the Left but hopefully that will change soon enough as the party membership grows rapidly and some fundamental theoretical and practical issues are cleared up at the next Árd Fheis and beyond. éirígí has what the IRSP is seriously lacking: good organisational skills, and it has a similar analysis of the current situation in Ireland and its historical development. There is a lot of room for improvement though and I, as a Marxist, will be doing my best to push things more and more in a Marxist direction.

[Jorge Miguel]

anyway, those people aren't going to be a problem anymoreThe IRSP putting out bulletins calling for people to contribute support to an individual in prison for chopping someones head off with a shovel hardly projects a positive image.

[Seven Stars]

To be fair, the INLA in Dublin were under attack from drug dealers, so that is why they were as active as they were, many of them have since been arrested.

And éirígí isn't fooling anyone, we all know they were set up and are funded by the provos.

[Hessian Peel]

And éirígí isn't fooling anyone, we all know they were set up and are funded by the provos.

Is that a joke?

[Devrim]

Could you explain to me why exactly you believe that national liberation movements are anti-working class and why you think the interests of the nation and the working class are diametrically opposed.

Im genuinely interested in other peoples opinions so this isnt me saying im right and your wrong. Ive just never really got why people believed the right to self-determination to be an anti-working class ideal.

Basically, we believe that national liberation movements drag the working class into fighting not for their own class interests, but for those of the nation, which in the present epoch is virtually always a tool of other imperialist powers.

It mobilises the working class for war behind its own national bourgeoisie and more often than not on behalf of local and international powers.

National liberation struggles today have a tendency to be little more than moments in inter imperialist rivalry.

If you are interested in it, these articles explain the position:

"National liberation" in the 20th century: a strong link in the chain of imperialism:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/068_natlib_02.html

How the revolutionary wave of 1917-23 was weakened by support for "national liberation" movements:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html

This series explains our view on the discussions within the workers' movement during the revolutionary period:
Communists and the National Question:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/034_natqn_01.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/037_natqn_02.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/042_natqn_03.html

Devrim

[Hessian Peel]

Basically, we believe that national liberation movements drag the working class into fighting not for their own class interests, but for those of the nation, which in the present epoch is virtually always a tool of other imperialist powers.

It mobilises the working class for war behind its own national bourgeoisie and more often than not on behalf of local and international powers.

National liberation struggles today have a tendency to be little more than moments in inter imperialist rivalry.

If you are interested in it, these articles explain the position:

"National liberation" in the 20th century: a strong link in the chain of imperialism:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/068_natlib_02.html

How the revolutionary wave of 1917-23 was weakened by support for "national liberation" movements:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html

This series explains our view on the discussions within the workers' movement during the revolutionary period:
Communists and the National Question:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/034_natqn_01.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/037_natqn_02.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/042_natqn_03.html

Devrim

So in the event of a situation like Gaza at present or Iraq or Afghanistan what do you propose the working class and the poor do exactly? Nothing? Are all acts of resistance to imperialism serving the interests of the bourgeoisie in your view?

[Cumannach]

It's incorrect to state as a general principal that national liberation struggles are contrary to the interests of the working class and of establishing socialist rule. It's a question of strategy tailored to specific conditions.

The aim of socialists is to overthrow the present state and and seize state power. Obviously there can be conditions where a temporary alliance with bourgeois nationalists can serve the interests of the working class in their struggle. Usually, if a country is under the rule of a foreign imperialist power, then ipso facto the foreign state is more powerful than any native bourgois state. Simple arithmetic lets us see that were the socialists to be struggling against a native bourgeoisie, whose state apparatus is weaker by nature than the foreign power, their chance of success increases.
Therefore, if the combination of the working class and the bourgeois nationalists can oust the foreign power, and diminish the power of the repressive state apparatus in opposition to the socialists and the masses of the people, it is a progressive and logical action to take, to forge a temporary alliance with nationalist elements.

Perhaps the working class will be in a position of such strength as to be capable singlehandedly of throwing out the foreign state and immediately building socialism. It depends on the actual conditions.

Mao and the Chinese understood this clearly, and indeed it's not hard to understand. And that's just one of many examples, another is say, Connolly in Ireland.

[Hessian Peel]

It's incorrect to state as a general principal that national liberation struggles are contrary to the interests of the working class and of establishing socialist rule. It's a question of strategy tailored to specific conditions.

The aim of socialists is to overthrow the present state and and seize state power. Obviously there can be conditions where a temporary alliance with bourgeois nationalists can serve the interests of the working class in their struggle. Usually, if a country is under the rule of a foreign imperialist power, then ipso facto the foreign state is more powerful than any native bourgois state. Simple arithmetic lets us see that were the socialists to be struggling against a native bourgeoisie, whose state apparatus is weaker by nature than the foreign power, their chance of success increases.
Therefore, if the combination of the working class and the bourgeois nationalists can oust the foreign power, and diminish the power of the repressive state apparatus in opposition to the socialists and the masses of the people, it is a progressive and logical action to take, to forge a temporary alliance with nationalist elements.

Perhaps the working class will be in a position of such strength as to be capable singlehandedly of throwing out the foreign state and immediately building socialism. It depends on the actual conditions.

Mao and the Chinese understood this clearly, and indeed it's not hard to understand. And that's just one of many examples, another is say, Connolly in Ireland.

Well said.

[duffers]

Devrim, I doubt for one second you're a smart fella with your head on your shoulders, but you are falling into the same dogmatic trap that has dogged (dog dog dog) socialists' view on Ireland. There cannot be such a thing as one fits all classlessness.

The fact is, egalitarianism has been born out of a nationalistic struggle. From its original inception as republicanism as advocated by Wolfe Tone and Mitchel, to its current day form fathered by James Connolly. What seperates Irish republicanism from mere nationalist fevour, is the core tenet; freeing ourselves from shackles in turn will free others, true to the internationalist foundations the ideology was built on, with the republics (however false to the working class and wrong they would turn out to be) of United States and France in mind. Easter Rising came to fruition because of the revolutionary wave sweeping the continent, and in turn galvinsed others such as the Russian Revolution.

Be clear now; we are as much at odds with national liberation in its traditional sense as you are. We have always rejected the splinter IRA groups and their political entities as bourgeois nationalism, and continue to do so. But to turn our back on the catalyst on our raison d'etre, and as a result, one of the largest far left movements in the world, is completely at our peril.

[Marion]

The aim of socialists is to overthrow the present state and and seize state power. Obviously there can be conditions where a temporary alliance with bourgeois nationalists can serve the interests of the working class in their struggle. Usually, if a country is under the rule of a foreign imperialist power, then ipso facto the foreign state is more powerful than any native bourgois state. Simple arithmetic lets us see that were the socialists to be struggling against a native bourgeoisie, whose state apparatus is weaker by nature than the foreign power, their chance of success increases.
Therefore, if the combination of the working class and the bourgeois nationalists can oust the foreign power, and diminish the power of the repressive state apparatus in opposition to the socialists and the masses of the people, it is a progressive and logical action to take, to forge a temporary alliance with nationalist elements.

Of course, what happens in reality is actually that the working class politics end up weakened by allying with the "native bourgois state" and, if they win, the "native bourgois state" ends up being just as bad as the "foreign imperialist power". Not a big surprise as capitalists are capitalists, whether they are "native bourgois" or "foreign imperialist". Of course, if you want, you can make yourself feel better by supporting the weaker capitalist power but its bugger-all to do with the class struggle...

[gilhyle]

The problems with the ISRM run much more deep than any mere critique of militarism. Their stalinism and maoism and mindless iconography of Connolly (whom I greatly respect but cant always agree with) are part of much deeper problems with a party which simply has no programmatic foundations to its politics. But when it comes to militarism, the issue in the republican tradition has always been the independent decision making structures of the army - this form of organisation is justified only in the extremes of miliitary conflict. Otherwise, the military discipline imported into republicanism from the british army and from republicanism BY ITS FOUNDER into the IRSP/INLA has been the poison that rotted the IRSP from the beginning....and from the days the left opposition in it around McAliskey (never a member) were thrown out using the power of the INLA and feud with the Officials set the tone for its corrupted and unreliable political life. It was never a proper party and the tradition needs to dig very deep now to get over its defunct republican cliches and develop a politics which is less Mao, more Trotsky.......and a lot more 21st century.

[Seven Stars]

Bernette Devlin left, she wasn't thrown out. And you should read the Ta Power document, that would clear up the rest of which you said which is mostly incorrect. The Party is at the head of the RSM, not the INLA.

[Hessian Peel]

Bernette Devlin left, she wasn't thrown out. And you should read the Ta Power document, that would clear up the rest of which you said which is mostly incorrect. The Party is at the head of the RSM, not the INLA.

The Ta Power Document hasn't been implemented. The situation in Dublin demonstrates that the IRSP doesn't control the INLA.

[Devrim]

So in the event of a situation like Gaza at present or Iraq or Afghanistan what do you propose the working class and the poor do exactly? Nothing? Are all acts of resistance to imperialism serving the interests of the bourgeoisie in your view?

I want to come back to this tomorrow. I will start a new thread as it is a bit off topic here, but it is a really important point.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Duffers, I think you are really caught up in the 'romanticism' of Irish nationalism.

Devrim

[duffers]

And I think you're really open minded.

[Devrim]

Thanks,
Devrim

[duffers]

So basically, a complete lack of knowledge of Irish republicanism, yet you think you're in any position to comment? Sorry mate, that's not how it works.

Commendable for parroting the same line that's been used for 90 years or so, but give it a rest unless you're actually going to formulate a reasonable response. And don't fucking patronise me, either.

[Devrim]

So basically, a complete lack of knowledge of Irish republicanism, yet you think you're in any position to comment? Sorry mate, that's not how it works.

Duffers, it isn't about who knows what, or who has what experinece, but if you want to get down to it you live in London, and I believe have never lived in Ireland whereas I lived in Northern ıreland through the worst years of the 'troubles'.

Of course that doesn't make me right, but it does make me able to say that actually I have quite a good idea of what is going on, possibly more than you.


Commendable for parroting the same line that's been used for 90 years or so, but give it a rest unless you're actually going to formulate a reasonable response. And don't fucking patronise me, either.

I think if you read through the entire thread you will see that I do present a coherent argument. Take a look. You might not agree, but there is a reasonable argument. I just don't have much time for dewy idea romantic nationalism though.

Devrim

[duffers]

That's similar to saying, it doesn't matter what Marx said, the USSR was communist. That's the argument expected of a child. You either know the birth, raison d'etre and fallacies of Irish republicanism, or you don't. It's as simple as that. Now your mention of The Troubles seems to suggest your prejudice towards the grief is justified, because you believe this was in the name of the movement; that further compounds you've not a clue. And I can say that quite easily, all the way in London.

You present a dogmatic, archaic, set in stone argument, I agree, but not a respectable one.

What is that thing you're building out of straw there? I nor the majority of actual republicans have romantic notions of nationalism, quite the opposite. Still no actual point to make then. Right you are.

[PRC-UTE]

The problems with the ISRM run much more deep than any mere critique of militarism. Their stalinism and maoism and mindless iconography of Connolly (whom I greatly respect but cant always agree with) are part of much deeper problems with a party which simply has no programmatic foundations to its politics. But when it comes to militarism, the issue in the republican tradition has always been the independent decision making structures of the army - this form of organisation is justified only in the extremes of miliitary conflict. Otherwise, the military discipline imported into republicanism from the british army and from republicanism BY ITS FOUNDER into the IRSP/INLA has been the poison that rotted the IRSP from the beginning....and from the days the left opposition in it around McAliskey (never a member) were thrown out using the power of the INLA and feud with the Officials set the tone for its corrupted and unreliable political life. It was never a proper party and the tradition needs to dig very deep now to get over its defunct republican cliches and develop a politics which is less Mao, more Trotsky.......and a lot more 21st century.

I disagree a fair bit here. (I know you're shocked by that :lol:)

I don't think the IRSM's political anaylsis for one is very Maoist (leaving the Broad Front aside). I'd agree wholeheartedly that its organisational scheme is heavily influenced by Maoism, but a few things have changed since then. It's political analysis would be closer to Trotsky's permanent revolution than anything from the Stalinist tradition which in the situation would call for the workers not to put forward a partisan class position but to instead unite with the 'progressive' bourgeoisie.

I think you're leaving out Costello in all this (as well as Gino who recognised the new conditions post gfa would lead to putting militarism away). Costello was more a political man than military by the end of his life. He wisely stemmd the flow of guns to Belfast. Anyway, his political efforts- building a community base and working on local issues is a viable blueprint many IRSP members have followed since his death. the RSYM is also following the Costello approach. Not enough have, but it's definitely the foundations of a programme.

re Connolly iconography, you definitely have a point. however an IRSP comrade Liam O Ruairc produced the most in depth critique of Connolly I've seen yet. I wish he'd write a book on the subject as there's a such a lack of work on Connolly out there- and I think the existing works like Ellis' collection of Connolly's writings are misleading. we once spent a night at Kellys going over this, Liam's work on Connolly myth v reality is sound.

[PRC-UTE]

The Ta Power Document hasn't been implemented. The situation in Dublin demonstrates that the IRSP doesn't control the INLA.

Dublin's an exception and atm what you're describing isn't the case.

[gilhyle]

Read Ta's document ....didnt think much of it. Devlin as I recall hearing it was never a member so she never left. In any case, that left wing trend was forced out, they didnt just....'leave'. I disagree about Costello, he was happy to build a political base, but only from a determinedly militarist elitist stance.

As to the Trotskyism in the organisation today...yea I can see it if you mean the old 'trotskyism' of the Revolutionary Marxist Group/Peoples Democracy (Mark 2) ....but then half of them ended up in Sinn Fein.

As to Connolly, if you havent read them, read Kieran Allen's book on Connolly (cant believe Im recommending anything by Allen !! ), Larraghy, Johnson and McWilliams Connolly : A Marxist Analysis and J.L. Hyland's James Connolly.

[PRC-UTE]

thanks for the book recommendations. will add em to the list.

re Devlin, that contradicts every other account I've come across, written or oral.

[Jorge Miguel]

She was indeed a member and stormed out of an Ard Comhairle meeting when a vote did not go her way. I believe she proposed that the INLA be subordinate to the IRSP on the basis of democratic centralism.

[redflag32]

Basically, we believe that national liberation movements drag the working class into fighting not for their own class interests, but for those of the nation, which in the present epoch is virtually always a tool of other imperialist powers.

It mobilises the working class for war behind its own national bourgeoisie and more often than not on behalf of local and international powers.

National liberation struggles today have a tendency to be little more than moments in inter imperialist rivalry.

If you are interested in it, these articles explain the position:

"National liberation" in the 20th century: a strong link in the chain of imperialism:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/068_natlib_02.html

How the revolutionary wave of 1917-23 was weakened by support for "national liberation" movements:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html

This series explains our view on the discussions within the workers' movement during the revolutionary period:
Communists and the National Question:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/034_natqn_01.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/037_natqn_02.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/042_natqn_03.html

Devrim

The problem i have with the left-communist analysis of national liberation struggles is that it tends to ignore the proletarian element that does exist within them. I agree that there is a tendency within the nationalist movement which would encourage the struggle towards a bourgeois settlement but i disagree that the movement is solely made up of those elements.

James Connolly noticed the flaw in the bourgeois nationalists and he distinguished between them and his republican socialism constantly. In Ireland the national liberation movement was made up of a mix of classes. The bourgeoisie took control and eventually capitulated to imperialism. That may not have occured if the international communist movement had supported the proletarian section of the national liberation movement instead of ignoring it and condeming the whole lot as reactionary.

The struggle against Imperialism in Iraq, Afganistan and palestine is a struggle all progressives must support. Even if it is waged and controlled by bourgeois elements. It is progressive for these countries to finally be in a position were they can build society to western levels and to remain inheritors of their own resources and wealth. It isnt a bad thing that they turn capitalist, its the natural next step for them, and we all know what the next one is.

We should be supporting the proletarian element in these countries so that at the point of independence they might be in a strong enough position to implement progressive social policies, if nothing else. ignoring them just strenghtens the bourgeois elements and makes it easier for them to squash any left wing alternative at the point of independence.

The Irish left-republican movement was in such a position when it gained independence. What Connolly brought to the table was just not large enough to make an impact, especially since he was dead now. If the left section of the republican movement was given the moral and physical support of the international left then maybe that wouldnt have been the case and maybe Irelands leftism wouldnt be in such a dire shape today.

I dont think its fair or logical to look at national liberation struggles in such a conservative way. There is a dialectical struggle going on within them between classes and to abandon the proletarian class within this struggle is wrong in my view.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Their stalinism and maoism and mindless iconography of Connolly (whom I greatly respect but cant always agree with) are part of much deeper problems with a party which simply has no programmatic foundations to its politics.


Anyway, his political efforts- building a community base and working on local issues is a viable blueprint many IRSP members have followed since his death. the RSYM is also following the Costello approach. Not enough have, but it's definitely the foundations of a programme.

Something posted on the RSM board itself came across my mind:

http://rsmforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2279



Minimum Programme
a) The nationalisation of all banks and an end to what could be described as a rehashed laissez faire (under monetarism and the free market) thus allowing more government intervention in the economy.
b) The nationalisation of all major industry, indigenous and multinational, with no compensation to the present owners, domestic or foreign, thus helping guarantee job security for the workers.
c) Narrowing of pay differentials between higher and lower paid workers upwardly. Tax increases earmarked for health, housing, education, etc.

Maximum Revolutionary Programme
a) A planned economy based on economic planning of the production of goods and services for the needs of the population and not the greed and profits for a few entrepreneurs.
b) Workers' ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange which will be aimed at the provision of goods and services of the highest standard. All positions of managerial responsibility to be filled by election and subject to recallable accountability, thus reducing the possibility and scope for abuse of power.

Although I know the distinction between nationalizations by the bourgeoisie and nationalizations by the proletariat, B) in the minimum programme sounds too similar to B) in the maximum programme.



As for a more detailed critique, I'll start with this: technically, the anti-imperialism and "proletarian revolution" (workers' power only per se, NOT the two-point maximum programme) stuff should be the core of the Republican Socialist minimum programme (communism being the maximum).

Demands of a more "politico-political" nature should be raised [...]