Left/Council Communist and Maoist writings on Ireland and Irish Republicanism.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Greetings,

I am seeking to find Situationist/Left/Council Communist writings on Irish history from the 16 th century to the present aswell as ones written from a "Maoist" view point.

Particularly on the civil war period and the situation in the occupied six counties after partition to the present time.

I am not looking for anarchist or "standard" Marxist-Leninist understandings.

If anyone can help I would be very grateful.

Thank you.

P.

[duffers]

Mr.O'Donnell, back from the dead, although you've spelt your own name wrong, Peadar!

For Maoism, you would do well to seek out Saor Eire's (Trot and Maoist group, not the Peadar related one) work, since they had quite a big Maoist following within.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Mr.O'Donnell, back from the dead, although you've spelt your own name wrong, Peadar!

For Maoism, you would do well to seek out Saor Eire's (Trot and Maoist group, not the Peadar related one) work, since they had quite a big Maoist following within.

My spelling is awful please forgive.

A long, long time ago I read a pamphlet on Ireland put out by Exchanges and Movement (I think...or anyway by some Council-Communist grouping) and was seeking to relocate a copy of it. That was the primary purpose of my post.

Also my understanding was that Soar Eire was not infact Maoist...That they were vaguely "New Left" and indeed purely "physical force". One member is still in jail in the Free State to my knowledge for an armed robbery and the shoot out that followed from it.

I would though be interested if anyone could tell me where I could find old Revolutionary Struggle writings particularly on Ireland.

[duffers]

Only jesting.

I will look for you, but http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com (http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/) is your best bet for Marxist matters in Ireland. Lots of pamphlets available via links.

Agreed, they weren't Maoist, but had Maoist members, such as Jim Lane. Their physical force action was to procure funds through bank robbery. I know some went to gaol, but I don't know if they are left inside. Tis 38 years ago now.

I'll let you know if I have any joy.

[Hessian Peel]

The CPI (ML) were Maoist at one stage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Ireland_(Marxist-Leninist)

[duffers]

An update, with regarding Saor Eire.

There was two groups using the same name at the time, although unrelated; Saor Eire in Cork, many of whom would go on to form Cork Workers Club, and Saor Eire Action Force, who were based in Dublin, and responsible for the bank robberies. It is the latter that has said to forced the former to disband.

Maoists have by and large never been associated to a group, only elements within one.

[Alf]

Hello
here are a few of the more historical articles you can find on the ICC website if you type Ireland into the site's search facility.

Let us know what you think.

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/292_1916_rising.html

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/231_ira.htm

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/sept/belfast-1907

[ComradeOm]

Maoists have by and large never been associated to a group, only elements within one.Unsurprising given that the stronghold of Irish socialism has always been the Dublin working class and that Connolly, who has largely shaped the intellectual growth of Marxism on this island, was a firm believer in modernisation. The latter was not quite to the degree of the Bolsheviks of course, but statements such as "There is no constructive socialism except in the industrial field" indicate his attitude to one principle tenet of Maoism. Hence analyses of Ireland's past, those that do look as far back as the rent wars, tends to run along traditional Marxist lines

Besides, Maoism in Western Europe tends to appeal to those who have very little actual contact with the peasantry. They certainly have never met an Irish farmer

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Hello
here are a few of the more historical articles you can find on the ICC website if you type Ireland into the site's search facility.

Let us know what you think.




Thank you.

Once I have read through properly I will try to comment intelligently.

However do not a lot of the Left/Council Communist community have problemns with the ICC? (Though I realise Im getting off topic here but if you could fill me in I would be grateful).

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Besides, Maoism in Western Europe tends to appeal to those who have very little actual contact with the peasantry. They certainly have never met an Irish farmer


Typical arrogance of the pompously "progressive" Dublin intelligentsia and labour aristocracy that have gained so much from those responsible for Ireland's suffering and are so out of touch with the ways and feelings of our people. What effect would meeting an Irish farmer have upon them? Maybe if you actually knew any you would not be so quick to sneer.

Our day will come.

[Devrim]

However do not a lot of the Left/Council Communist community have problemns with the ICC? (Though I realise Im getting off topic here but if you could fill me in I would be grateful).

Yes there are many disagreements with the ICC. However, most of them are about organisational questions. The basic points of the ICC's analysis of national liberation struggles are shared by all left communist organisations.

The differences are not about disagreements on this question.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

Typical arrogance of the pompously "progressive" Dublin intelligentsia and labour aristocracy that have gained so much from those responsible for Ireland's suffering and are so out of touch with the ways and feelings of our peopleHarsh words in defence of a political strain that has been practically non-existent on this island. But then the rural countryside in Ireland has never been fertile breeding ground for socialists of any stripe. This is both understandable and broadly keeping in line with other European nations. Its particularly pronounced in Ireland given the effort expended by both FF and FG to court small farmers and kulaks

And indeed small farmers and kulaks are all that's really left of the Irish peasantry. While there are still many agricultural labourers, although I suspect the majority fall within in the food processing industry, the idea of an Irish peasant class is really an anachronism. This was the result of deliberate government policy to destroy landless tenants and create a class of small farmers; its favoured mechanism was the Irish Land Commission which was explicitly endorsed from the earliest years of the Free State


What effect would meeting an Irish farmer have upon them? Maybe if you actually knew any you would not be so quick to sneerOh come now, do you really think that there is an Irish person alive who has not at some point met a farmer? Even the Dubs see a few wandering around Drumcondra every summer. Which is probably why Ireland is probably almost unique in Europe in that it has never had a Maoist party - its hard to reconcile the image of a farmer rich off EU grants and sitting on a pretty piece of land with that of a starving guerrilla fighter in the jungles


Our day will come.Be careful, the ICC take a dim view of people using such 'nationalist' slogans

[Die Neue Zeit]

While there are still many agricultural labourers, although I suspect the majority fall within in the food processing industry [...] its hard to reconcile the image of a farmer rich off EU grants and sitting on a pretty piece of land with that of a starving guerrilla fighter in the jungle

I thought industrial farming and what not has its fair share of EU agriculture:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1310040&postcount=20 (the latter part of the chat poses my question on EU farming)

[ComradeOm]

I thought industrial farming and what not has its fair share of EU agricultureOh quite possibly, but this does not filter down into the hands of individual workers, at least no more than any average subsidised industry. In contrast the CAP is essentially all that is sustaining the average small Irish farmer with EU funds being channelled directly to them

Indeed its the same throughout Europe with the CAP solely existing to maintain an obsolete class of small farmers that are supportive towards bourgeois government. But that is a broader topic

[Die Neue Zeit]

So it's different from the content of the chat between CL and myself above, then?

[duffers]

However do not a lot of the Left/Council Communist community have problemns with the ICC? (

Namely Devrim and his sort who arrogantly think they speak for all left communists.

Regarding Maoism, much like Bolshevism, it was tailored made to the majority, despite not being proletariats in the sense we know. As Om rightly said, socialism has thrived in Ireland in your major cities or towns, rather than in rural areas. Infact, Peadar O'Donnell himself embraced the struggle having gone to Dublin, and then Scotland. Where he was from in Donegal, the ruling class were the gombeen men and the landlords; the people merely worked for them.

[Leo]

Namely Devrim and his sort who arrogantly think they speak for all left communists.

No one is speaking for all left communists: It is simply a historical fact none of the organizations in the tradition of the communist left support national liberation and this has been one of the defining positions of out movement. There can't be a left communist who supports national liberation struggles, it would be an oxymoron.

[Devrim]

Namely Devrim and his sort who arrogantly think they speak for all left communists.

I don't think I speak for all left communists. I am just explaining the positions that left communists hold. It is not arrogant. It is just fact.

Devrim

[duffers]

No one is speaking for all left communists: It is simply a historical fact none of the organizations in the tradition of the communist left support national liberation and this has been one of the defining positions of out movement. There can't be a left communist who supports national liberation struggles, it would be an oxymoron.

Again, you speak for me, seeming to know every nuance of my thought.

Perhaps I'll tell you my actual stance, rather than you constructing strawmen. I am a Irish republican, and a left communist, this much is true. I do not believe in 'national liberation', other than wishing for the island to be liberated of imperialism, nor do I advocate socialism in isolation. I follow the modern Irish republicanism as espoused by both Connolly, and later, O'Donnell, a similar "oxymoron". Simply put, like he, I believe in the struggle to create a worker's republic, utilising councils from the north of Ireland to the south.

Whilst the vast majority of proponents use the phrase Irish republicanism erroneously, this is the reality; the ideology is inheritantly socialist, and internationalist. Furthermore, with O'Donnell's developments, he created the inseperable bond between Irish republicanism and council communism.

[PRC-UTE]

Furthermore, with O'Donnell's developments, he created the inseperable bond between Irish republicanism and council communism.


I'd be interested in hearing more about this.

[Leo]

Again, you speak for me, seeming to know every nuance of my thought.


Not at all, I am speaking about historical facts.


Perhaps I'll tell you my actual stance

If you wish.


I am a Irish republican

Ok.


and a left communist

What defines one as a left communist? I think being a militant or a sympathizer of a left communist organization does, instead of proclaiming to be one. Are you a militant or a sympathizer of a left communist organization?


I do not believe in 'national liberation', other than wishing for the island to be liberated of imperialism

So you do believe in national liberation meaning the national liberation of Ireland from British imperialism, yes?


nor do I advocate socialism in isolation.

No one said that you did.


Whilst the vast majority of proponents use the phrase Irish republicanism erroneously, this is the reality; the ideology is inheritantly socialist, and internationalist.

I think the entire history of the theory and practice of the movement in question proves you to be completely wrong about this.


I follow the modern Irish republicanism as espoused by both Connolly, and later, O'Donnell, a similar "oxymoron".


Furthermore, with O'Donnell's developments, he created the inseperable bond between Irish republicanism and council communism.

Connolly was never a left communist though, and although always in the left wing of the Second International, he unfortunately ended up leading himself and the ICA to collaboration with nationalists and a tragic end. The lessons left communists historically developed from this experience was what not to do rather than what to do, so it can't really be said that he was with regards to his position on national liberation an inspiration for the left communists: indeed his positions directly contradicted theirs.

As for O'Donnell, I've never heard anything about him being a left communist or a council communist, and though I haven't read his works, what I know of him are very contradictory with the positions of the left communists and the council communists historically in quite a lot of ways, including his role in the IRA, in the Irisih Civil War, and in the stalinist International Brigades in Spain. And I have never read that he had any connections with left communists ever.

The only person I've heard who had been a left communists coming from the Irisih socialist circles was Jack White, who was a comrade of Connolly. He agreed with Sylvia Panhkurst's Workers' Dreadnought groups criticisms of the Irisih Communist Party and joined them (for Pankhurst's critique: http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1922/ireland.htm). After working with left wing ex-IRA people in mid 30s in the Republican Congress, he too went to Spain, fighting for the CNT and eventualyl ending up as an anarchist.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I'd be interested in hearing more about this.

I think what he is trying to say is that "Irish Republicanism" represents the struggle of the Irish working class and peasantry aganist repression and exploitation and therefore from a Marxist view point would lead naturally to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Also the fact that Irish Republicans tend to be of the working people or at least in deep sympathy with them and therefore do not regard them with a Leninist or trendy lefty arrogance which merely sees "the workers" tools for some philosphical program. It is interesting to note that while Irish Republicanism has produced some beautiful and deep novels such as those of Francis Stuart, Liam O'Flatherty and Peader O'Donnel himself it has been singularly lacking in political theory....

[duffers]

Ah Leo, Devrim's doppelganger. Hello.

Would you like defunct or current groups that I sympathise with? Or is the latter only acceptable? I wasn't aware you had to sympathise with a group at all, in order to follow an ideology. Is that the ICC's rule of devotion? That's certainly not a group I sympathise with.

National is branded about a lot in that sentence. I only believe in liberation of imperialism; I have no time for the or a nation, nationality, nationalism or national boundaries of land. I mention socialism in isolation only as it is historically attached to national liberation.

Pray tell, surmise your theory on Irish republicanism, and how it is not inheritantly socialist nor internationalist. Note, if you wish to peddle nationalist actions and theories repeatedly, don't bother, it's a fruitless exercise.

No one said anything regarding Connolly as a left communist. He was an anarcho-syndicalist, and a Marxist, who made a grave error in judgment. He believed, naively, that from the planned nationalist uprising of the country, socialists inturn would be able to take control. I think he's been damned enough for this.

O'Donnell fought in the Irish War of Independence, and the Irish Civil War, in a time where socialist exposure occurred heavily within the IRA, who had several socialist elements. The internecine war was a realistic opportunity for socialist fervor to be put into praxis, and I don't think he nor others can be condemned for believing this was a way forward.

Republican Congress' intention was to create a Worker's Republic. This was directly at odds with the idea of a centralised party, featuring a popular front and class collaboration that Leninists and their ilk desired. This is indicated by the vote that would lead to the RC's demise, whether it would continue as a driving force for a worker's republic (which can only be translated as a direct democracy worker movement) or amalgamate into the CPI. There isn't a doubt in my mind that whilst O'Donnell didn't feel the same, there was many that would leave, that thought the worker councils were the only way the proletariat could have his voice heard.

You yourself have mention White's involvement in the RC, so evidently O'Donnell had, and infact, appealed to left communists.

Regarding O'Donnell and others subsequent involvement in the Brigades, on a subject many know little about, especially in relation to the Irish involvement in Spanish Republic, I've not a great deal to say. I don't think, given what he was like as a person, would have tolerated nor supported communist suppression by the Stalinist traitors. But his particular stance, I agree, is in conflagration with left communist. Might be worth adding though, this was following the collapse in the RC, his support in the CPI, and a change of tactics.

[Devrim]

Duffers,

Firstly, neither leo nor myself are members of the ICC as you seem to think.

Secondly, generally we say (and other left communists agree with us) that a left communist is not somebody who 'sympathises' with an organisation, but somebody who is a militant of an organisation or at least a sympathiser in an organised sense.

It gives a real definition. To be a left communist is not to merely be sympathetic with a certain political current. It requires political activity.

Now, I am 100% certain that you are not a member of any left communist organisation because none of them would accept a member with your opinions because they are opposed to their positions.

As you have said on here recently, you don't like our politics on Irish republicanism and our advocation of abstentionism of in the Irish referendum. Yet these are basic positions that all left communists would agree with. That is what left communism is, and it is why you aren't one because you disagree with general positions on which all left communists are in agreement.

There are other organisations, which are influenced by some of the ideas of left communists. One example would be the new UK group 'the commune':http://thecommune.wordpress.com/. I imagine that they would be much closer to your politics. They support national liberation, but then they don't call themselves left communists.

Devrim

[duffers]

I don't like your ignorance toward Irish republicanism, not your politics, nor your view on abstaining on a plebiscite, which cannot be claimed to be a aspect of parliament. I'm sorry to deviate from your dogma, but to do otherwise is complete working class surrender.

I agree with the major tenets of left communism such as non parliamentarianism, councils, and no to frontism, thus why I am a left communist. I do not blindly follow every aspect however. Ironically, neither have left communist groups. The CP of Italy supported the right of determination, but the Dutch and German parties didn't, seeing it as bourgeois nationalism; didn't result in claims of non-council communism. Perhaps they had enough decorum to not sling mud, eh?

[Devrim]

Perhaps they had enough decorum to not sling mud, eh?

Duffers, if anybody has slung mud on any of these threads it is you not us. Look back at them. Look who insults people, and calls people names.


I agree with the major tenets of left communism such as non parliamentarianism, councils, and no to frontism, thus why I am a left communist. I do not blindly follow every aspect however. Ironically, neither have left communist groups. The CP of Italy supported the right of determination, but the Dutch and German parties didn't, seeing it as bourgeois nationalism; didn't result in claims of non-council communism.

But what is referred to as 'left communism' today is the synthesis of the work of the Italian and German lefts done by the Left fraction of the Italian party in the 1930s. Those who take the line of the German left are usually referred to as Councilists, or council communists, and those who follow the line of the Italian left are referred to as Bordigists.


I don't like your ignorance toward Irish republicanism, not your politics,

Disagreeing with you doesn't make one ignorant. I am well aware of the history and practice of Irish Republicanism. I just think it has nothing to offer the working class.


nor your view on abstaining on a plebiscite, which cannot be claimed to be a aspect of parliament.

But then my argument against it isn't that is is an 'aspect of parliament'. Though I do think that it is.


I'm sorry to deviate from your dogma, but to do otherwise is complete working class surrender.

You are entitled to think whatever you like. I don't expect you to keep to 'our dogma' as you are not a left communist and don't agree with it.

The idea that refusing to support a bourgeois referendum being a 'complete working class surrender' is amusing though.

Devrim

[duffers]

People in glass houses...

You've just sidestepped the point I've made. The Dutch and German left communists disagreed with the Italian left communists on the point of self determination. This didn't result in the former two branding the latter non-council communist, did it? A yes or no will suffice, or would you like a fence?

You are, in a way akin to those that purport communism is Stalinism or Leninism. You don't know the actual truth or practice about Irish republicanism, and that is ignorance, especially when claiming to do so.

Pray tell, what is your argument? That the working class gains nothing from either camp? That can only mean delusion, which I suggest you visit a doctor about. It is contrary to the truth.

Now you know what and what I don't agree with, hey that's impressive. Fortune teller as well as self imposed voice of all?

Not as amusing as the ICC message that spawned that remark.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For the left-communists on this board: is every council communist a left-communist?

[Devrim]

For the left-communists on this board: is every council communist a left-communist?

Jacob, there aren't really any council communists today, or at least no council communist organisations. They certainly came from the same roots as today's left communists, but there was a political difference.

Devrim

[Leo]

Ah Leo, Devrim's doppelganger. Hello.

It's our organization's logo.


Would you like defunct or current groups that I sympathise with? Or is the latter only acceptable?

Current.


I wasn't aware you had to sympathise with a group at all, in order to follow an ideology.

Well now you are.


Is that the ICC's rule of devotion?

Nope has got nothing to do with the ICC specifically. You can only judge an ideology by organizations that adhere to them - ideologies do not exist with individuals feeling affection for them but in organizations.


That's certainly not a group I sympathise with.

I don't think that's the point at all.


National is branded about a lot in that sentence. I only believe in liberation of imperialism; I have no time for the or a nation, nationality, nationalism or national boundaries of land. I mention socialism in isolation only as it is historically attached to national liberation.

Please elaborate, I do not understand what you mean here.


Pray tell, surmise your theory on Irish republicanism, and how it is not inheritantly socialist nor internationalist. Note, if you wish to peddle nationalist actions and theories repeatedly, don't bother, it's a fruitless exercise.

What is called Irish republicanism is and has always been a nationalist ideology and practice, I think this is a very obvious thing to say.


No one said anything regarding Connolly as a left communist. He was an anarcho-syndicalist, and a Marxist, who made a grave error in judgment. He believed, naively, that from the planned nationalist uprising of the country, socialists inturn would be able to take control. I think he's been damned enough for this.

Unfortunately I think his errors are being glorified, being portrayed as a heroic blood sacrifice.


You yourself have mention White's involvement in the RC, so evidently O'Donnell had, and infact, appealed to left communists.

He talked with someone who has been a left communist, I don't think having intercourse with White makes him a left communist; it was a bigger current back then and I'd imagine many others 'appealed' to left communists now and then.


The CP of Italy supported the right of determination

Italian left communists discussed, elaborated and fundamentally revised their position in the 30s.


The Dutch and German left communists disagreed with the Italian left communists on the point of self determination. This didn't result in the former two branding the latter non-council communist, did it?

They had bigger disagreements which unfortunately lead the Italians to regard the Dutch and German left to be a strange anarcho-syndicalistic group and the Duch and Germans to regard the Italian left as crazy ultra-Leninists.


Pray tell, what is your argument? That the working class gains nothing from either camp?

What has the IRA offered to the working class through it's long history?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

What has the IRA offered to the working class through it's long history?


It has offered the working class (as if it can be seperated from the Irish working and small farming classes from which it arose) defense from the literally murderous forces of British colonialism. Should the working class of the occupied six counties during the "troubles" or of the whole of the Island during the Tan war have just sat back and let itself be butchered in the interests of some vague internationalism (which could well be first world chauvianism painted red)? In reality what was the alternative to the IRA? Murder. Torture. Imprisonment.

[duffers]

The slur of doppelganger refers to your shared traits, not your avatars.

I continue to be not aware, as your solitary claim of importance doesn't register with me.

There is absolutely no basis for that theory. Thought outside the party line is capable for some of us. Jealous?

National liberation is assumed, to assert nationalism in place of imperialism, when I nor socialist republicans desire such an outcome. Myself, I do not care for the notion of a nation and all that it entails, whether it is Ireland or not.

Lets try again; "surmise your theory on Irish republicanism, and how it is not inheritantly socialist nor internationalist. Note, if you wish to peddle nationalist actions and theories repeatedly, don't bother, it's a fruitless exercise", because "what is called Irish republicanism is and has always been a nationalist ideology and practice, I think this is a very obvious thing to say" isn't an adequate response.

Indeed they have, by nationalists. Republicans should know the lesson well of class collaboration.

"And I have never read that he had any connections with left communists ever", perhaps you should let Devrim field these questions. I think having a left communist amongst the party qualifies for a connection.

Semantics regarding the Italian CP; they made their stance clear at the time, and weren't shunned as a result. We can keep going round and round about this, but that's fact. They were too diginified to sling mud over a deviation, you're not. Simple as.

Made it possible to repel the biggest imperialist force in which terrorised their communities and way of life, served as a breeding ground for progressive ideas to flourish, giving birth to a large amount of communists and groups, a militant response to fascism, support for reforms such as the Democratic Programme, and an organisation in which change could be palatable. Meanwhile, you've slung mud from the internet. Lift that head up, and take your hat off your nose.

[Leo]

It has offered the working class (as if it can be seperated from the Irish working and small farming classes from which it arose) defense from the literally murderous forces of British colonialism.And who were to defend the Irish working class from republicanism and the IRA?


Should the working class of the occupied six counties during the "troubles" or of the whole of the Island during the Tan war have just sat back and let itself be butchered in the interests of some vague internationalismI think it is clear that it was butchered in the interests of nationalism.


In reality what was the alternative to the IRA? Murder. Torture. Things present with the IRA as well.


The slur of doppelganger refers to your shared traits, not your avatars.We have many different traits. On the other hand the slurs you have been throwing shows a very immature behavior.


I continue to be not aware, as your solitary claim of importance doesn't register with me.Up to you. You can as well think yourself to be a cow for all I care.


There is absolutely no basis for that theory. You have failed to prove it to be so.


Thought outside the party line is capable for some of us.Oh for all of us. But this sort of positions is what determines what organization you are in, it defines ideologies. If you support Irish nationalist organizations, you can't be a left communist, it is against the very basis of the concept.


National liberation is assumed, to assert nationalism in place of imperialism, when I nor socialist republicans desire such an outcome.We are opposed to national liberation in general and has seen that in practice it has always asserted nationalism, and one that is fed by opposing imperialist powers, in place of imperialism. Socialist republicans are unaware of 20th century history if they claim national liberation struggles lead to anything else. I of course am not questioning anyones intentions and am sure that they do not desire such outcome.


Myself, I do not care for the notion of a nation and all that it entails, whether it is Ireland or not.Good for you.


I think having a left communist amongst the party qualifies for a connection.Though far left of the far left still, it could be said that Jack White had moved away from his old positions when he joined the RC.


Semantics regarding the Italian CP; they made their stance clear at the time, and weren't shunned as a result. We can keep going round and round about this, but that's fact. They were too diginified to sling mud over a deviation,As said before, there were bigger deviations over which the Italian and Dutch left at the time declared each other to be petty-bourgeois or bourgeois currents, wrongly in my opinion, but yeah these things happen, people take their political differences seriously.


Meanwhile, you've slung mud from the internet.You have been throwing insults since you started arguing with us on this thread but this is a bit too much, coming from you. You too are posting from the internet, throwing insults to militants of an organization in a country where it is far more dangerous at the moment to be militants than where you are living, of being "internet warriors".

[duffers]

It was butchered, for English minded nationalism. The Irish in both ends of the country wanted to be united, and that was inclusive of their Protestant brethren.

I can only guess you know nothing of the IRA. Within the War of Independence, they fought with great respect, honouring surrenders and allowing the men of battalions not considered excessively brutal towards the populace to go. There was no torture or murder of the Irish working class, that much is obvious by how they operated, the dependency they had both in them, and surrounding them, and the fact they acted as the only force in their defence. The only signs of torture occurred to loyalist informants that were undermining the Irish working class.

You seem to be quite ignorance, and equally rude, dogmatic to a tee, and feckless when thinking for yourselves arises. This much is shown by claiming those without ties or sympathies for a group cannot foster an ideology.

Failed to prove there's no basis for your claim? That's because it's beyond repute; by your logic, Marx wasn't a Marxist, because he wasn't a militant nor sympathising with a group at a point in time. Needless to say, that sort of thinking would embarrass a child.

As for supporting Irish nationalist organisations, I wasn't aware I did such a thing. You asked me what the IRA have done for the working class, not do I advocate them. The answers are resoundingly different for either question. Not that I have to justify myself, but I would like to clarify, I support no nationalism, nor nationalist groups. I'm sure if I keep saying it, eventually it'll get through.

And I'm against national liberation, as I've stated several times. Socialist republicans are against national liberation. Even the INLA, what you would suspect is your archetypal national liberation group (as the name suggests) have specifically said that they are not for national liberation in the traditional sense. The strawman is quite possibly the cheapest tactic of all, won't you cease with it?

Ironic crying immaturity when you respond to a point with "good for you".

It could be said that about Jack White, but it also could be said you're moving the goalposts to suit your argument.

Third time I'm saying this; the parties disagreed on the singular issue of self determination. This never led to shunning the Italian CP as a result. I'm not sure how I can word that in a more concise manner. The response is always naming other issues, and the progression of the civility, all of which is moot.

Yet I'm not decrying anything. It is you and Devrim who persist on the condemning with poor arguments that theory, history and praxis disprove. I never said you two were internet warriors, just that is incredibly easy to not acknowledge the evident achievements that the IRA and the men involved made, despite the fact we all may not agree with the intention or action. It's rough being a militant in Turkey? "Good for you".

[PRC-UTE]

I think what he is trying to say is that "Irish Republicanism" represents the struggle of the Irish working class and peasantry aganist repression and exploitation and therefore from a Marxist view point would lead naturally to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Also the fact that Irish Republicans tend to be of the working people or at least in deep sympathy with them and therefore do not regard them with a Leninist or trendy lefty arrogance which merely sees "the workers" tools for some philosphical program. It is interesting to note that while Irish Republicanism has produced some beautiful and deep novels such as those of Francis Stuart, Liam O'Flatherty and Peader O'Donnel himself it has been singularly lacking in political theory....

That doesn't answer my question at all, which was re the link between O'Donnell and something called Council Communism.

I've read O'Donnell's work and it was mostly about peasants and fishermen in Donegal. Which is why I ask again what it has to do with council communism. Though I haven't read his work on Spain yet.

I've read O'Flaherty in English and I hope to read him as Gaeilge eventually.

Have you read any work by O Cadhain?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

That doesn't answer my question at all, which was re the link between O'Donnell and something called Council Communism.

Have you read any work by O Cadhain?

No sadly I havent but I will try to find some of his work.

What form does the IRSP believe that socialism should take in Ireland (and the world)?

[Jorge Miguel]

Maoist writing on Ireland here -

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/maoist-third-worldist-stand-in-line-on-ireland/

Probably the best analysis I've came across.

[duffers]

That doesn't answer my question at all, which was re the link between O'Donnell and something called Council Communism.



I made this post explaining the link, albeit within the confines of Republican Congress.

Republican Congress' intention was to create a Worker's Republic. This was directly at odds with the idea of a centralised party, featuring a popular front and class collaboration that Leninists and their ilk desired. This is indicated by the vote that would lead to the RC's demise, whether it would continue as a driving force for a worker's republic (which can only be translated as a direct democracy worker movement) or amalgamate into the CPI. There isn't a doubt in my mind that whilst O'Donnell didn't feel the same, there was many that would leave, that thought the worker councils were the only way the proletariat could have his voice heard.

Might I add, he went further than ruminating about Donegal and farmers; he was a trade unionist up and down the Six Counties, and got involved in a few red flag hoisting strikes. Flawed from a communist perspective, but an interesting figure. I can't help but think using the IRA as a socialist revolutionary group was naive.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Maoist writing on Ireland here -


Probably the best analysis I've came across.

Yes I found that recently by myself. It is very interesting though they seem a little manic.

[Hessian Peel]

Duffers,

I don't see how one can be an Irish Republican (or rather support national liberation) and at the same time be a "Left/Council Communist". I would think Leo’s and Devrim’s opinions are fairly representative of the general outlook of most communists from this tradition and clearly you are at odds with them.

[Andropov]

Unsurprising given that the stronghold of Irish socialism has always been the Dublin working class and that Connolly, who has largely shaped the intellectual growth of Marxism on this island, was a firm believer in modernisation. The latter was not quite to the degree of the Bolsheviks of course, but statements such as "There is no constructive socialism except in the industrial field" indicate his attitude to one principle tenet of Maoism. Hence analyses of Ireland's past, those that do look as far back as the rent wars, tends to run along traditional Marxist lines

Besides, Maoism in Western Europe tends to appeal to those who have very little actual contact with the peasantry. They certainly have never met an Irish farmer

An ignorant position.
You would do well to read up on the likes of Jimmy Gralton.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Thank you

[PRC-UTE]

I made this post explaining the link, albeit within the confines of Republican Congress.

Republican Congress' intention was to create a Worker's Republic. This was directly at odds with the idea of a centralised party, featuring a popular front and class collaboration that Leninists and their ilk desired. This is indicated by the vote that would lead to the RC's demise, whether it would continue as a driving force for a worker's republic (which can only be translated as a direct democracy worker movement) or amalgamate into the CPI. There isn't a doubt in my mind that whilst O'Donnell didn't feel the same, there was many that would leave, that thought the worker councils were the only way the proletariat could have his voice heard.

Might I add, he went further than ruminating about Donegal and farmers; he was a trade unionist up and down the Six Counties, and got involved in a few red flag hoisting strikes. Flawed from a communist perspective, but an interesting figure.


on issues such as national liberation, he was firmly a product of Leninist ideas. Post-Marx and Connolly, Leninists are the only elements to enthusiastically take up the project of liberating oppressed nationalities.

Re class collaboration, I'm not sure where you're going. O'Donnell certainly believed in the historic mission of the working class to organise to overthrow capitalism and take control, but he was not in any sense a purist, which Left Communists are. An important part of O'Donnell's RC programme was the cancelling of the annuinities payements and uniting with small farmers (and after FF took up the cause, the RC didn't have much of a chance at success). Anyway, I don't see how a proletarian led force for national liberation looking to ally itself with sections of the peasantry is different than Leninism, or puts O'Donnell at all in the Left Communist camp.

on the subject of the centarlised party, that's not a significant dispute between Left Communists and Leninists that I'm aware of. The most important figures "claimed" by LC believed in and practiced a centralised party. I think you're confusing LC with anarchism.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

on the subject of the centarlised party, that's not a significant dispute between Left Communists and Leninists that I'm aware of. The most important figures "claimed" by LC believed in and practiced a centralised party. I think you're confusing LC with anarchism.


There are huge differences between the Dutch/German and the Italian Left Communists on this question. Most of the rest of the "Ultra-left" seems to have a low opinion of the ICC who for their part seem to consider those others to be "parasites".

And was there not an English based Left Communist group called Red Action that was very vocal in its support for militant republicanism in the 1980s?

[eli]

And was there not an English based Left Communist group called Red Action that was very vocal in its support for militant republicanism in the 1980s? :lol: You either don't know what Left Communism is about, or you don't know what Red Action was about (ya know, an expelled group of SWP trots over anti-fascism, support for electoralism, support for national liberation kinda doesn't sound like a Left Communist group, does it shithead?) or both.

[Leo]

There are huge differences between the Dutch/German and the Italian Left Communists on this question. Most of the rest of the "Ultra-left" seems to have a low opinion of the ICC who for their part seem to consider those others to be "parasites".This is not true at all. The ICC only considers groups that have split from them to be parasites and this is due to these groups activity being focused on attacking the ICC. On the other hand these are either defunct or quite minor and small groups. Also with at least one of them who can be said to have moved away from their previous mentality centered with the ICC, the ICC has better relations with.

The ICC does not consider the IBRP to be a parasitic group at all, they criticize the IBRP with being sectarian and opportunist while the IBRP criticizes the ICC of being idealistic and luxemburgist on the economical question. This being said, the two groups do basically share most political positions, and the differences are on the organizational policy and theoretical understanding levels. As for the Bordigists, their groups don't even have any relationship at all with other Bordigist groups, let alone the ICC or the IBRP.

Other than that the ICC has quite good relations with a number of emerging left communist groups from different parts of the world, from Far Asia to Latin America.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

:lol: You either don't know what Left Communism is about, or you don't know what Red Action was about (ya know, an expelled group of SWP trots over anti-fascism, support for electoralism, support for national liberation kinda doesn't sound like a Left Communist group, does it shithead?) or both.

I did not know that they supported electoralism.

However they were revolutionary Marxists and anti-Leninist, were they not?

Given the actual situation of organized racists attacking working class people and what was really happening in the occupied six counties I wouldnt take their attitude to fascism and British imperialism in Ireland as support for "Democratic" idealogy.

[eli]

However they were revolutionary Marxists and anti-Leninist, were they not? And Left Communism is defined by being 'anti-Leninist?' Even if this was so, and it ain't - not by a long stretch - then all sorts of political animals would be Left Communists - like anarchists, liberals yada yada.


Given the actual situation of organized racists attacking working class people and what was really happening in the occupied six counties I wouldnt take their attitude to fascism and British imperialism in Ireland as support for "Democratic" idealogy. Funny, they go like bread and butter. One minute Togliatti was a great supporter of the anti-fascist movement, next moment he was telling workers to respect the democratic insittutions of the Italian state. Like bread and butter.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

And Left Communism is defined by being 'anti-Leninist?' Even if this was so, and it ain't - not by a long stretch - then all sorts of political animals would be Left Communists - like anarchists, liberals yada yada.



Liberals and anarchists are not revolutionary Marxists though are they?

[ComradeOm]

An ignorant position.
You would do well to read up on the likes of Jimmy Gralton.You have a link to his writings?

And incidentally you'll note that Gralton, like O'Donnell and like Connolly, was radicalised not in the fields of Ireland but the dockyards and factories of America/Scotland

[Andropov]

You have a link to his writings?

And incidentally you'll note that Gralton, like O'Donnell and like Connolly, was radicalised not in the fields of Ireland but the dockyards and factories of America/Scotland

I have a book about him, a brief summary.
The life and times of Jimmy Gralton.
Aye there is truth in that but Gralton showed that Radicalisation of the Peasant Irish was very much possible if Revolutionarys mobilised themselves in rural areas.
I see the lack of radicalisation of the Peasant Irish the fault of Revolutionarys and not the Peasants themselves, they neglected them and left them to the papal yolk.

[ComradeOm]

I see the lack of radicalisation of the Peasant Irish the fault of Revolutionarys and not the Peasants themselves, they neglected them and left them to the papal yolk.Surely this is as damning a condemnation of the Irish peasantry as you can get. A class that is unable to radicalise itself, or achieve class conciousness by its own efforts, is simply not revolutionary. Social tensions in the Irish countryside were not producing socialists of note - rather they were driving huge numbers of peasants into urban centres (both at home and abroad) where some of these new proletarians subsequently became noted revolutionaries

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Surely this is as damning a condemnation of the Irish peasantry as you can get.


Have you read James Connolly's History of Irish Labour?

[PRC-UTE]

There are huge differences between the Dutch/German and the Italian Left Communists on this question. Most of the rest of the "Ultra-left" seems to have a low opinion of the ICC who for their part seem to consider those others to be "parasites".

And was there not an English based Left Communist group called Red Action that was very vocal in its support for militant republicanism in the 1980s?

there still is, but it's a tiny shell of what it once was.

I know quite a few of their ex-members actually cos we absorbed some of them, and others we still work with.

they're not left communist, but you're right that they had an anti-Leninist streak (except on national liberation). they were kind of a back-to-marx kind of project if that makes any sense.

[duffers]

Jeez, getting fucking bored of explaining I don't agree with national liberation, nor does infact, republicanism.

As for O'Donnell being a Leninist, nonsense. He has said as much, that the IRA should have been a group to force revolutionary social change; he neither declared himself at the fore of a vanguard, nor advocated for such. With regards to "liberating oppressed nationalities", O'Donnell constantly put forward the labour conscious concern, that he exalted beyond nation. It never was a nationalistic endeavour for him.

Left communists, as shown with various currents and disagreements aren't purists whatsoever. Your current day form I would agree, is, but whether that truly represents left communism, I disagree. The split was over the choice of parliamentary frontism, or not.

I don't believe the farmers of Ireland that were indeed targeted, were differing much from the proletariat; they couldn't afford to exploit others, even if they desired to. They were as much ruled as the urban dweller. Regardless, one facet of the RC's overall objective is quite moot.

You've not a clue about left communism, if you're not aware of any disputes revolving the centralised distribution of power; left communists were famously at odds with Lenin's Russia. Workers' councils are diametrically opposed to the culmination of a vanguard assuming power. As left communists, we believe in a party, yes. A federal, centralised party, that assumes the role of the overseer of the revolution? No.

As for the ICC's reputation, amongst left communists, it might be grand, but others see it rightly as a bit of self indulgent militant sacrifice. How they possibly think the average working man is going to be interested in left communism, which such a contrived outlook, is beggar's belief.

[PRC-UTE]

Jeez, getting fucking bored of explaining I don't agree with national liberation, nor does infact, republicanism.

Republicanism in Ireland is bound to national liberation. I agree that republicanism is distinct from ethnic nationalism, but national liberation is a different concept in Marxism, going back to Lenin and the Communist International.



As for O'Donnell being a Leninist, nonsense. He has said as much, that the IRA should have been a group to force revolutionary social change; he neither declared himself at the fore of a vanguard, nor advocated for such.


but his work in the Republican Congress would demonstrate otherwise. He clearly believed in building a group of more advanced political cadre to push the struggle forward.

although he was sympathetic to the anarchists and POUM in Spain, he never left the communist or republican movement. your argument that he wasn't a Leninist is highly polemical, not factual.



With regards to "liberating oppressed nationalities", O'Donnell constantly put forward the labour conscious concern, that he exalted beyond nation. It never was a nationalistic endeavour for him.

He was grounded in the struggle of labour, true indeed. His background as follower of Larkin was more in the workers movement than the republican cause. However it doesn't change the fact that he spent much of his life trying to push the republican movement to the left, rather than working independent of it.



I don't believe the farmers of Ireland that were indeed targeted, were differing much from the proletariat; they couldn't afford to exploit others, even if they desired to. They were as much ruled as the urban dweller. Regardless, one facet of the RC's overall objective is quite moot.

the point is, O'Donnell along with Ryan pushed for an alliance with a section of the petit bourgeoisie. I'm not disagreeing with this approach, just noting that this kind of tacical flexibility is closer to Lenin than Left Communism.

[Devrim]

the point is, O'Donnell along with Ryan pushed for an alliance with a section of the petit bourgeoisie. I'm not disagreeing with this approach, just noting that this kind of tacical flexibility is closer to Lenin than Left Communism.

Not just on this line but on your whole approach here, it isn't really often that we find ourselves in agreement.

However, maybe 'Duffers' should consider that when both the Irish republicans and the left communists agree that there can't be a 'left communist republicanism', maybe they are on to something.

The IRSP are a republican party. Actually, they are what you would call 'left republicanism'. They are in no way left communists though.

The ICC is one of the two left communist organisations that exist in the UK (the other is the CWO). Neither of them support Irish republicanism.

None of these facts prove that the political strategy of myself, yourself, or the IRSP posters is wrong. That is a matter of opinion. I believe it is. They believe it isn't. I am not quite sure what you believe.

I think it is clear though that what you are proposing isn't left communism.

Devrim

[Andropov]

Surely this is as damning a condemnation of the Irish peasantry as you can get. A class that is unable to radicalise itself, or achieve class conciousness by its own efforts, is simply not revolutionary. Social tensions in the Irish countryside were not producing socialists of note - rather they were driving huge numbers of peasants into urban centres (both at home and abroad) where some of these new proletarians subsequently became noted revolutionaries

But you are ignoring the context of the Irish peasant.
There was definetly revolutionary potential within them as was seen in the land seaizures, cattle drives and soviets being established around the countryside during the 20s.
It was just the Revolutionary potential was not harnessed by a vangaurd and so the bourgoise could stamp out all inserection in isolated incidents.

[ComradeOm]

Have you read James Connolly's History of Irish Labour?Yes

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Yes

Which gives plenty examples of how radical Irish peasants often were in the 19 th century. You also seem to fail to realise the depth and brutality of the counter-revolution (so-called civil war and the "free state" that followed it) which resulted in the murder or exile of the most radical elements in Ireland.

[Hessian Peel]

But you are ignoring the context of the Irish peasant.
There was definetly revolutionary potential within them as was seen in the land seaizures, cattle drives and soviets being established around the countryside during the 20s.
It was just the Revolutionary potential was not harnessed by a vangaurd and so the bourgoise could stamp out all inserection in isolated incidents.

It's no longer relevant though as Ireland has no peasantry.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Irish Historical Statistics: population, 1821-1971

An approximate indication of the numerical decrease is given by the Irish census returns. Between 1841 and 1901 the male population aged fifteen and over fell, in round numbers, from 2,400,000 to 1,500,000, a decline of slighty under 38 percent in six years, while the number of rural laborers decreased by 73 percent, from 1,1000,00 to 295,000.The famine acted as a means of dispossession for the further accumulation of capital-the decline in the capital value of farmland and the reduced demand for agricultural labor meant that, accompanied with an increase of foreign customers for manufactured goods, the demand for industrial workers would rise. It destroyed the pre-capitalist relations in production.

'Bourgeois revolution' sacked the countryside, with absentee landlords raising rent on private (and very small) family plots. The Church's avarice effectively was no longer materially possible with the below-subsistence wage that farm laborers received. The diminished yield for the potato, combined with these other factors, made Dublin and Belfast attractive spots for migration. It's important to track what happened to the Irish 'peasant' (a confusing label in our current epoch) after that. The large, parasitic "estates" no longer could rely on land tenancy, or they'd simply suffer from a shortage of 'hands' doing the work. It meant a lack of constant employment for farm workers, and the lowest wages of anyone on the island.

It means that they, in fact, are the most revolutionary section of the Irish working class. In Callan, Cork, Kanturk, and Dublin, there were nascent strikes in which rentiers were attacked with pitch-forks and small arms. They were excluded from revolutionary republican and fenian movements, who came from the urban artisan and shopowner class. Maoism would come a little late (agriculture is more mechanized at this point), but the neglected rural areas are, and always have been, hotbeds of radicalism.

[ComradeOm]

Which gives plenty examples of how radical Irish peasants often were in the 19 th centuryYes, I thought as much - we are no longer discussing the peasantry of the 20th C because a) it no longer exists, and b) it was never revolutionary. Granted, I failed to explicitly deal with this in a previous post (as I thought I had) but that offers no excuse for jumping back and forth along a timeline

But we might as well deal with the 19thC peasantry now. Now here we have the standard example of a peasantry agitating for limited land reforms under liberal guidance. There are many such contemporary examples, particularly Mexico and Russia, but the important thing to note is that these 'revolts' were neither socialist nor revolutionary. Their objective was political, not social, reform and, as in Ireland, their radical character immediately ceased following the accomplishment of these modest objectives

The most important, and relevant, point is that by the early 20thC only the final acts needed to taken to satisfy the peasantry - eg, the general abolition of the remaining large tenant estates - and this was achieved through nationalist leadership and the new apparatus of the Free State. The latter was a body that the peasants certainly had no issue with and their enthusiasm in recognising its courts and authority is evidence of this. Ironically the conclusion of this land struggle led to the end of the Irish peasantry itself and the rise of a class of small farmers

[Andropov]

It's no longer relevant though as Ireland has no peasantry.

I never said it was.
I was just correcting comradeOM who said, "the stronghold of Irish socialism has always been the Dublin working class".

[ComradeOm]

I was just correcting comradeOM who said, "the stronghold of Irish socialism has always been the Dublin working class".And you have yet to show how the Irish peasantry was ever socialist. Radical during the 19thC, perhaps, but not socialist

[PRC-UTE]

And you have yet to show how the Irish peasantry was ever socialist. Radical during the 19thC, perhaps, but not socialist

Well not as a whole. But there may be some exceptions. Ellis book on the history of the Irish working class described some peasant communes setup by a landlord who broke with his class named Thompson.

[Andropov]

And you have yet to show how the Irish peasantry was ever socialist. Radical during the 19thC, perhaps, but not socialist

How about the hundreds of soviets set up in the countryside by the Irish Peasantry?