Results 1 to 20 of 26
Ireland
It seems to me the leftists here support the IRA/Republicans in Northern Ireland even though the majority of the residents of Ulster prefer to remain in the UK. If you believe in self-determination why is this so?
2+2=4
Its not England's right to control the Irish people there. A lot of people in America pefer to remain in Capitalism, but that doesn't mean we don't want to see it go. Sometimes people get "stockholm syndrome" on a massive scale.
this utter bullshit really shows the arrogance of IRA supproters, they're convinced that the irish population of Northern Ireland (in actual fact the majority of Northers consider themselves British) are oppressed and utter the boot of imperialism, like some type of police state, that the irish population is captured and being held to ransom, ignoring that most people there are Scotish decended.
They suggest that all will be good when the North joins the republic, yet what about those millions of protestant Unionist brits? Well I suppose the IRA just says fuck'm cause they're are part of the invading force, or even worse, they suggest these British go home. If the IRA goals came through we'd just have the same problem reversed, with the British minority on Irish land, they obviously don't care about them since it's not there home and such.
well it is there home, it's everyone home and the IRA are nothing more then a nationalist group, and nationalism is a poison to all working people, it divided us more then anything else, creates new barriers and invisable borders between people, and the IRA say - in all there patriotism - Irish first, I say I am a citizen of the world.
And I've voiced my opinions against Irish nationalism before, and as per usual I am refered to as an apologist for opression, a pro imperialist and other such drivel, on the contray the insults of a reactionary.
Its not the same thing, wayyy over simplified.
It scares me that you're from Ireland. How on earth are you so ignorant about your own island? Frankly I don't know what Northerners you've been talking to because a sizeable minority of the North's population (about 35-40% IIRC) has consistently favoured reunification with the South. Which is at least half a million people, including areas such as Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone and Armagh (these are areas that were only ever included in the North in the first place in order to increase its size and viability). But hey, let's just ignore these communities that faced brutalisation and a police state a mere twenty years ago
What about them? Weren't you saying that the Catholic Irish population in the North should just shut up and put up? Dublin at least has, unlike Belfast, never pretended to be a 'A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People'
I'd use the phrase social-imperialist. Hiding behind a façade of socialism while advocating the continuation of an arbitrary imperialist border
Because there is absolutely no rational for the maintenance of a separate state in the north east of this island. There was once, in a perverted way, when such a border was necessary to maintain the ascendency of an Unionist elite and ensure British control over the region's industrial assets. Given that the former no longer exists, in name at least, and the latter is most definitely no longer the case, there is no reason to maintain the border. The reasons for abolishing it are myriadOriginally Posted by Richard Nixon
In any case, if elections were held tomorrow as to whether the North should remain part of the UK or rejoin Ireland, I can say with confidence that four of the six countries would elect to secede. So I wouldn't be so keen to use "self-determination" in supporting the continued existence of this remnant of colonialism
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
Bullshit man. Ulster is predominately nationalist.
The province of Ulster is made up of nine counties, not the six that the pro-Brit/unionists would have you believe.
'Northern Ireland' came into being by the gerrymandering of the border, which Irish republicans and socialists rightfully see as illegitimate, therefore denying the majority their right to national self determination.
There are some idiots here who lose their heads on the issue and buy into some really horrible nationalism. When all is said and done nations are artificial entities and leftists should not be getting into games defining x as this nation and y as that nation.
I get particularly upset when people frame the issue as if it is an injustice to the Republic of Ireland, that it has some "right" to the territory that supercedes the wishes of the people there. That is the outlook of the far right, yet I have seen people on this very board express it.
The Northern Ireland issue is one of the injustices within the six counties themselves. That is to say there was systematic discrimination against Catholics to am appalling degree. Denied jobs and housing, prevented from exercising meaningful suffrage and suppressed by an openly Sectarian Police Force. And for half a century Britain ignored this and then for another quarter of a century made only vague gestures at doing anything about it.
You may be able to see the problem here.
I think it is pretty self evident that this could not have happened if Ireland was united. The sizeable Protestant minority in the other three counties of Ulster were treated equally with other Irish citizens though the practices of the Irish government in other aspects meant that it wasn't exactly a great place to live. Anyway the point is that the injustices that went on in Northern Ireland were made possible by the partition of Ireland and the six counties remaining part of Britain.
However the past cannot be changed and we can only talk about what is to come and that is an issue for the people of Northern Ireland. I believe quite strongly that it would be better to unite Ireland and that would be my vote if I lived in Northern Ireland just like my vote here is for Scotland to leave the UK, the goal being for those who haven't guessed for the UK itself to cease to be. However it is not my place to force that view on anyone else. If the majority in Northern Ireland cannot be persuaded to accept reunification then partition will have to remain for the time being.
Ulster Unionism as we know it today has its roots in sectarian hysteria whipped up by non-Ulster men like Lord Randolph Churchill and Edward Carson (who was a Dubliner with an Italian Roman Catholic mammy)....In order to protect the industry in the north from falling out of British hands....Now that the Brits have let hell the industry there go hell they still cling onto the occupied for idealogical purposes.
I have had lengthy email arguments with three working class Unionists and I have talked too a good few more about politics aswell as corresponding with northern Republicans and chatting with them (most of my family on one side is from the north)....Under no circumstances has the Republican movement ever advocated re-patriation. Both the United Irishmen and later the Fenians in the north had a very strong Protestant component. The hysteria whipped up in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries aswell as the reactionary nature and indeed RC integralist up to a point nature of the Free State which was founded in the 26 counties on the graves of Republicans has made most working class protestants recoil from Republicanism...But that does not change its essentially progressive nature or Unionisms essentially reactionary nature.
Though there is no comparison with the semi-fascist Stormount regime partition did create a sectarian or at least sectarianish state in the 26 counties. Dublin and Cork used to have large Protestant working class communites which have shrivelled up largely due to people bowing to social pressure and becoming RCs and economic immigration (sometimes basically forced into exile for being blacklisted as socialists which is a part of a Free State history almost totally ignored).What about them? Weren't you saying that the Catholic Irish population in the North should just shut up and put up? Dublin at least has, unlike Belfast, never pretended to be a 'A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People'
I'd use the phrase social-imperialist. Hiding behind a façade of socialism while advocating the continuation of an arbitrary imperialist border
Last edited by Palingenisis; 7th October 2010 at 20:26.
i created a thread yesterday on left-republicanism, it went something like this:
"http://irsm.org/history/leftrepublicanism.html
this may have been posted before. it's a reply from the IRSP to the weekly worker on the question of whether 'left' republicanism is capable of achieving socialism in ireland, with the WW criticising its lack of a formal programme or method. it's 5 years old now but i still found it interesting, mostly because of its materialist analysis of the 'british-irish' (as they were referred to in the original article) working class situation in the north and whether there is any hope they can be won to a left republican/socialist position (i personally think the two are the same in the irish context, the national question is the elephant in the room for groups like the SP). maybe this isn't anything ground-breaking but i enjoyed its analysis of the national question reduced to the individual level:
and also the talk of an encouragement a plurality of cultural traditions involves well-made points. maybe there's a hint of cultural superiority involved but then again it is almost certainly justified...it is not the fault of the average 'british-irish' worker in the north that their culture has been reduced to brain-dead sectarianism by a succession of manipulators and bigots. feel free to discuss or disagree (as i assume the left-communists, CWI members will) this question is highly relevant in the current context of a renewed dissident bombing campaign."
'northern ireland' is an an imperialist-created state with a gerrymandered border, founded chiefly to defend british economic interests in the region. it's very existence sectarianises the political landscape in ireland, and divides the working class in the north (an entirely intentional ploy on the part of the british administration). while those who consider themselves of british nationality in the north have the right to do so and republicans have no interest in removing this right; this has to be seperated from the reactionary political beliefs of unionism, upholding as it does imperialism, the monarchy and all the backwardness that comes with that. i agree with the valid points made by palingenesis and comradeom above and further offer the analysis that the question of irish unity will not be solved on a capitalist basis (that means anytime soon) - sinn féin in their more than a decade of power-sharing in the north have failed to sway the vast body of 'british-irish' people to their point of view - only republicanism based on a marxist analysis and thus a class-approach and appeal can win over these workers. i recommend reading the 'ta power document' written by a republican prisoner in the 80s which analysed the situation from a crude but insightful marxist pov, 'divided ulster' by liam de paor, and any james connolly you can find.
i can appreciate your frustration as their does seem to be a lot of uninformed opinionating on the subject, a lot of it boiling down to ignorant support of militarist republicanism. but the irish people have the right to self-determination as any oppressed nation does - it is merely evident that you can't build socialism with a boot on your throat and that is exactly what the british troops in the north are there to act as (the troop levels in iraq never reached as many as have been constantly stationed in the six counties). i take issue with your line, "The Northern Ireland issue is one of the injustices within the six counties themselves" - you have inverted the situation; the injustices in the north directly stem from the artificial and sectarian nature of the state, and it is only by removing the state and furthermore by instituting socialism in ireland that those injustices can be redressed.
i was going to point this out myself. wasn't the slogan of a 'protestant state for a protestant people' a direct reaction to de valera making a similar statement about a catholic state in the south? regardless that was the reality and another example of why non-socialist republicanism was/is bound to fail in an appeal to the 'british-irish' in the north.
Last edited by The Grey Blur; 8th October 2010 at 04:19.
“It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing dreams.” - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
"What forces can bring the national question to a successful conclusion? Only the working class can do so." - Ta Power
1. The Catholic community in Ireland up until the Troubles faced social discrimination. The Marxist controlled IRA simply let shit slide against the Catholic class out of more "unified working class" nonsense. In otherwords, for expedient political purposes and moral toilet paper.
2. The actions of the IRA involved indiscriminate killing of civilians. This is simply unacceptable and classifies under terrorism. There is no other way around it.
3. The killing of British politicians, soldiers, infiltrators, unionists, and terrorists are all justified and should be applauded by the left-wing. To not do so is to admit being a reactionary.
4. The situation is different now than it was. Catholics have largely regained social equity and representation. There is still prevalent chauvinism and prejudice but this is a fight that has largely been won. The killing of reactionaries was largely a success by the IRA.
5. Because the situation is different, unification for cultural and/or political purposes is an important discussion but not one that should necessarily lead to violence. Because gains have been made the nationalist question can be reduced from its past status to something more benign now. The minority of pro-British in Ireland are entitled to certain political voices so long as they adhere to the same social rights for the for the Irish as they themselves receive. Unlike in the past where the Marxist IRA dropped the ball when it was needed, the unification of the working class can be the main revolutionary goal.
Many leftists would like to see a South African situation to happen in Ireland and in Israel. But as South Africa has shown, political rights do not necessitate economic socialism or even social equity amongst the conflicting parties of race, creed, or religion.
The Israel question is still different, however, because there is a major source of social conflict still present.
Kill all Nietzscheans.
Pillage all Objectivists.
Sterilize all Sadists.
I broadly agree with your analysis but take issue with the following points:
I'll just copy and paste something from another thread on the subject:
A good book on the subject is 'Lost Revolution', which is a history of the Officials.
Rubbish. While noone on the left will shed any tears for these elements, there are plenty of criticisms to be made of the armed campaign and its tactics. Chief among them that it failed in its stated goal. Working-class revolution is based around mass action not the assassination of various reactionary individuals.
“It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing dreams.” - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
"What forces can bring the national question to a successful conclusion? Only the working class can do so." - Ta Power
I'm not so sure I'll trust yet another source claiming revisionism. The Marxist IRA failed to accomplish *anything* and floundered and died. Damn their principles, without appropriate action in defense of Civil Rights they are tits on a bull.
Provos dramatically increased the equitability of the Catholic Irish in occupied Ireland. The killing of civilians was never justified, but the tactics of the IRA successfully forced the hand of Britain to act.
Kill all Nietzscheans.
Pillage all Objectivists.
Sterilize all Sadists.
that's okay, you definitely know better than the volunteers involved in the gun battles themselves.
bullshit. civil rights were guaranteed before the provo campaign got off the ground again (as i stated, a lot of their older members rejected engaging with the demands for civil rights since they saw the entire state as illegitimate, there's pointless 'principles' for you never mind the OIRA). and anyway, "increasing the equitability of the catholic irish in occupied ireland" wasn't the provos' goal - national liberation was. my point was that their tactics (random assassinations, bombings, etc) that you endorse and claim noone on the left is allowed to reject failed and thus are quite evidently open to criticism.
“It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing dreams.” - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
"What forces can bring the national question to a successful conclusion? Only the working class can do so." - Ta Power
The problem is people like Stephen Gowans who will claim revisionism on anything that doesn't turn hard red. It's not that there isn't accurate information, but please question the source. Marxist IRA is going to claim that it was really doing things right, really did the right thing, but that's only one perspective that was drowned out by history and most reasonable observers.that's okay, you definitely know better than the volunteers involved in the gun battles themselves.
Bullshit what? That Catholics weren't subject to unfair civil and social discrimination in occupied Ireland? That, my friend, is is the bullshit.
The fact that they saw the state as illegitimate is whatever. If you're going to back down a struggle for social equality because of theoretical abstract then you're spoiled or a coward, likely both.
The goal of reunification wasn't completed. Equal Civil representation and the elimination of protestant privilege were all significantly completed, however. There is even a power sharing split in the occupied Ireland assembly.
You're desperately making equivocations and excuses. The Provisional IRA accomplished many things on the ground and punished reactionaries with bombs and guns - exactly what they deserve. The fact that it wasn't pretty or theoretically in line with college professor socialism probably makes it more legitimate.
Nonsensical Anarchists and "Marxists" who condemn the IRA are doing so out of privilege or their own Unionist sentiment. Pinning the tail on the closet reactionary has never been easier.
Kill all Nietzscheans.
Pillage all Objectivists.
Sterilize all Sadists.
i have no idea who gowans is. listen, there is an open process in west belfast of examining the events of the early troubles, and how they were later used by various competing political groups for their own ends. the end conclusion reached, and accepted even by the provo orthodoxy now, is that the idea that the OIRA deliberately failed to defend catholic areas because of a belief in non-sectarianism is rubbish. do you have any knowledge on the era? the provos are not innocent working-class defenders, they arose from a specific right-wing bent of republicanism rejuvenated by the return of the british army and all the brutality that came with it. they were funded in their early years by fianna fáil, the "anti-imperialist" party of the bourgeoisie in the south. as palingenisis pointed out in terms of violence the OIRA outmatched the PIRA until their ceasefire in 72. volunteers like joe mccann were famous for their daring, in attacking british/ruc barracks in plain daylight etc. the provo movement drifted further to the left as a new generation of urban working class youth lead by adams and co came to power. both groups are pointless in terms of revolutionary politics today in the north, and i'm a supporter of neither, i'm just pointing out that you are spouting an out-of-date, ill-informed, revisionist, second hand, and right-wing conception of how the PIRA came about.
This -strawman, i never disputed this.
re-read my post, you've entirely misunderstood. the PIRA's founders were the sort of ultra-republicans who refused to engage in the struggle for civil rights as they saw the state in the north as illegitimate. glad to see you agree though that their backing "down [from] a struggle for social equality because of theoretical abstract [sic]" rendered them politically worthless. my point was that for all your talk of "pointless principles" being behind the OIRA's supposed non-defense of catholic areas (a falsehood of course) it was the PIRA leadership who were clinging to pointless principles in refusing to back a practical demand for civil rights for catholics. these are the sort of backward militarists for whom the only worthwhile political expression is via bomb or bullet.
listen, the PIRA's goal was never "equal civil representation" nor "the elimination of protestant privilege" - as i just pointed out their founding fathers were the sort who rejected these reformist struggles. furthermore my point was that most of the groundwork for the current, more equitable situation in the north between protestants and catholics, was not a product of the provo bombing campaign but the work of the civil rights and the efforts of a mass struggle that preceded their campaign. the PIRA's stated goal was to get the british forces out of the north, and they failed. not one blade of grass was liberated. so on those grounds, yes, there is every ground to question the tactics of the armed struggle, of bombings and assassinations.
and then the inevitable ad hom attack. having an understanding of the armed struggle and its legacy in the north more nuanced than "the death of reactionaries is a good thing" is not the same thing as "making equivocations and excuses". for the record i come from a staunchly nationalist family born and raised in west belfast. to be honest that shouldn't have to figure in the debate and i could be as wrong as anyone else but if you're gonna lob ad hominem's you have to be prepared for the consequences.
“It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing dreams.” - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
"What forces can bring the national question to a successful conclusion? Only the working class can do so." - Ta Power
This goes back to what I said about not being able to change the past. A six county state was obviously artificial, but when we come down to it all states are artificial. Of course they become an accepted part of life once they have been around for long enough, but that does not make them "natural" entities.
Anyway while it would have been far better if partition had never happened, the fact is that it did and Northern Ireland became a reality and horrible oppression happened within it. It is all very well to say that that would not have happened had a different course been followed, but it did and we have to work with the consequences of that. Obviously I agree, as everybody here does that socialism is the only solution that will lay division to rest, but Ireland is not at the point of revolution. In terms of what comes about in the short to medium term we have to accept that reality and the reality is that forced reunification against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland would first of all be an injustice in of itself and secondly would ignite a new "troubles".
That is based on the false auspice that Northern Ireland was created by the democratic will of the Irish people, it was'nt. It was deliberately Gerrymandered by the British on the basis of areas of unionist majority to mantain their political foothold there. Or as Connolly referred to it a 'carnival of reactionism'.
Before then Northern Ireland was not an entity. there was no geographic, historical or social argument for the definition of Northern Ireland's borders other than the interests of the british bourgeoisie and to perpetuate the sectarian belief that protestants are superior. That is no basis on which to found a nation.
Last edited by Dr Mindbender; 10th October 2010 at 23:29.
Many workers would class themselves as 'unionist', should their deaths also be 'applauded' by the left wing?
Take your terroristic anti worker bullshit elsewhere.
