Who is really progressive in Northern Ireland?

by Johannes Wilm Sat May 24, 2008 05:45 j at indymedia dot no

I now published my final conclusion here: http://johanneswilm.org/index.php/item/158

by Kevin Murphy - 32 csm Sun May 25, 2008 18:21

The puppet British administration in the occupied territory has now invited George Bush to visit their parliament in the coming months . I suggest you simply turn up at the gates of stormont and see who is outside protesting as opposed to inside kissing Beorge Bushes butt to see who is progressive and who is not .
Martin McGuinness of sinn fein is the man who invited him . Martin also likes to meet people like Henry kissinger and receive awards from the likes of such trash .

by Johannes Wilm Tue May 27, 2008 06:24 j at indymedia dot no Calle de las Poetas, Calle Central, León, Nicaragua +5059173717

About GWB:
ok, you seem to be complaining about

1) British presence in Northern Ireland (more so than the presence of the forces of any other government in any other territory)

2) George W Bush's existence

3) George W Bush being invited to Stormont

4) George W Bush being in Northern Ireland rather than any other place on the planet

5) Sinn Féin and Martin McGuinness having invited George W Bush

6) Now last time I checked, Sinn Fein was the clearest parliamentary group complaining about pint 1 as well.

Now given that there is still a protestant majority in Northern Ireland, those sharing your views, and who I would see outside of Stormont would then be: anti-parliamentarian, Irish Republican people who distance themselves from Sinn Féin. It is my feeling that that group will not be very representative of the population. And also, it seems to me that you are fronting views that are not exactly allowing many others to join you.

Take this contradiction:

I get how one can be completely anti-government. Any government anywhere is working in an imperialist way and is suppressing its people. One should therefore be against government anywhere altogether. I probably share a lot of views with those thinking along these lines, although I would probably take it in a softer version in limiting any government's access to controlling the personal lives of people living in a certain area.

I also get how one can be Irish nationalist, and just want a united Ireland, without having any plans of socialism, etc. .

A third option I can see is being a British nationalist, and just want to be part of Britain.

However, I can not get how one can be radical, and simultaneously take about the "British occupation" in one place more than the rest of the Britain, given that there is still a majority being ok with that status in that area. Also, I fail to see the qualitative difference between a Dublin- and a London-based government, given that most of their time is spent on implementing EU guidelines or follow the decisions made through NATO together that are both equally well allied with the country of GWB -- the US of A -- and both helping them, at last indirectly, with their ongoing war effort.

It would be interested to hear what your perspective is. Wouldn't it be something like:

British withdrawal from Northern Ireland, stepping down of Martin McG. and all his fellow politicians to be replaced by your political friends, the disappearing of protestants from Northern Ireland so tat a majority would actually be happy about British withdrawal. Then Irish withdrawal from NATO, EU, etc. . Then stepping down of all Irish politicians who previously have defended the participation in these treaties. Then political opinion shifting in the Republic, and a new, hitherto unknown, party arising, that has never invited anyone they didn't like, like GWB. Then for Northern Irland and the Republic to unite.

…and still I question how all this togetehr rally can be seen as progressive… think about it.

BTW: I am aware that the two groups aren't anti-capitalist, the way I see myself probably. But I took that into account. Please read the conclusion.

by Republican Socialist - - Tue May 27, 2008 14:56

""The Left has generally supported those pro-catholics, who are working for a united Ireland as a part of a national liberation struggle from London rule.""

I fail to see why you need to mention, incorrectly might I add, that the left support the "pro catholics" in NI.

The division of NI into catholic and protestant was the doing of the British state, for its own ends. The republican socialist struggle has NEVER been one of religion, but one of class struggle. What religion people are has nothing to do with it as far as socialists go.

Also, republican socialism is not necessarily nationalistic, though there has been a tendency within the struggle unfortunately.

Republican socialists see the unity of Ireland as a means to achive socialism on this island. The British state has been the greatest factor in creating sectarian religious conflict, and therefore preventing substantial working class unity. To republican socialists, the removal of the British state and the arbitrarily constructed sectarian statelet of NI is necessary to create working class unity, and therefore the means to achieve socialism.

""get how one can be completely anti-government. Any government anywhere is working in an imperialist way and is suppressing its people. One should therefore be against government anywhere altogether.""

Republican socialists are against both the British and Irish governments/states. The removal of the sectarian statelet however, would be the removal of the greatest and most divisive factor on the island. As has been demonstrated many times in the past, any challenge to the British ruling class state has resulted in the creation of sectarian conflict as a means of defending its rule.

It is unrealistic to believe socialism will be created by 'one big european uprising'. The working class of all nations must overcome their own regional problems. The conditions are not 'uniform' across europe. The partition of this island is one such barrier which must be overcome.

The republican struggle is progressive.

by Johannes Wilm Tue May 27, 2008 21:58 j at indymedia dot no +5059173717

Hi,
as you can see from the comment left on my blog, some people criticize me from the direct opposite side, claiming that there is nothing leftist about PSF, etc. . The reason I write "pro-catholic" and not "catholic" is that not everybody actually still is religious/believes in god. I agree though, it's difficult to describe. As you can see from the interview, also amongst those unionist/protestants, there are those who want local rather than London rule for at least many things. This phrase was mostly aimed at those Americans, etc. that just remember it all from some news program, 20 seconds on Fox News.

As you can also see from my response there, yes, Sinn Fein is pretty much integrated with the rest of the European leftist parties -- be it through ENDYL youth or the United European Left parliamentary group in the European Parliament. To deny that it is supported more than any unionist group would not make a whole lot of sense.

As to the philosophy of everybody needs to mind their own business: well see, why do you think I'm willing to write this stuff? Exactly because I'm not from NI and I'm not there currently either. I don't have to fear much of anything.

As to the way to socialism: well, none of us know how it will happen specifically. However, I fail to see how the national struggle, and actually your national struggle in specific, makes anyone focus on anything beyond just that. Also I oppose most governments I know about in the world, but that's not an excuse for me to start throwing bombs at them. And much less to attack other people in my area.

Even if you don't see the point, and may just be happy about the general state of affairs up there, I am sure representatives of the various leftist parties around the world do so, and they should demand from Sinn Fein and others who want to call themselves progressive or socialist, that they should find similar groups on the other side, and then cooperate with them.

As silly as this may sound, but also an entire island of Ireland will not stay dry in a sea of worldwide capitalism. Where would the cars, microhips, food, clothing, etc. come from?

by Cael - Sinn Fein Wed May 28, 2008 12:01

Johannes, nobody even slightly progressive would take part in either of the partitionist assemblies imposed on Ireland by an alien power. And how you imagine organisations that promote neo-liberal policies like privatising public utilities, closing hospitals and inflicting water charges (as PSF do), could be described as being in any way socialist is beyond me.

by Republican Socialist - - Wed May 28, 2008 14:02

For a start, as Cael mentioned, I wouldnt call PSF socialist. They have some leftist tones, but they are not the "benchmark" of socialist republicanism and never have been. They are part and parcel of the capitalist state.

"""As to the way to socialism: well, none of us know how it will happen specifically. However, I fail to see how the national struggle, and actually your national struggle in specific, makes anyone focus on anything beyond just that. Also I oppose most governments I know about in the world, but that's not an excuse for me to start throwing bombs at them. And much less to attack other people in my area."""

We must make and fight for socialism, destroying the barriers which divide the working class. What greater barrier than partition?. There is no point in sitting around waiting for some magical revolution, which we know "nothing about", to come. That smacks of "the second coming of christ" and rings "cult".

We can see the divisions, we can see the causes and we have historical examples and lessons to learn from them. We must take action to eliminate that which causes disunity, the British presence in Ireland.

Who mentioned anything about throwing bombs?. Are you trying to equate republicanism = armed struggle? - this is not necessarilly so.

It would also be worth pointing out: It was the British Army, B Specials and sectarian death squads who started "throwing the bombs" to maintain their apartheid system in place. What subsequently developed was self defence.

"""As silly as this may sound, but also an entire island of Ireland will not stay dry in a sea of worldwide capitalism. Where would the cars, microhips, food, clothing, etc. come from?"""

Given a socialist Ireland? - it would most definitley require, for it to persist, other socialist revolutions elsewhere. Such challenges even face Ireland in 'worldwide capitalism', given the inefficiencey and expenses needed to transport 'cars, microhips, food, clothing" from one side of the world to here given the rising price of oil.

It can be expected that 'homegrown' industry will creep back, socialism, or no socialism.

by Johannes Wilm Wed May 28, 2008 14:50 j at indymedia dot no +5059173717

Ok,
good to hear that don't necessarily want to throw bomb. Yes, British oppression was bad at times, way back in the days. But I don't think you serve anyone really by claiming that what has happened for the last few decades can be labeled as "self defense".

As to you wanting to do something concrete: well, fight for social reforms today. That would at last point in the direction of where you want to go. As for SF: they are the only front locally represented in parliament. Sure, if I would interview every single person in their home, I would find super progressives here and there -- but the point is that they're not a political party of any force.

There are many obstacles in the way of socialism. One of the greatest is that the majority of people don't currently want it. I don't see how replacing British with Irish and US American troops in Northern Ireland would move you any close to that goal at all.

by Republican Socialist - - Thu May 29, 2008 00:04

"""Yes, British oppression was bad at times, way back in the days. But I don't think you serve anyone really by claiming that what has happened for the last few decades can be labeled as "self defense". """

Both the British and Irish states are tyrannical. Not 'back in the days', Now.

Armed republican action is a product of British oppression. It is understandable, and its continued existence is due to the errors made by the British state.

"""As to you wanting to do something concrete: well, fight for social reforms today. That would at last point in the direction of where you want to go. """

And what do you think republicans are doing? - not fighting for social reforms? - Its all that can be done at the moment.

"""As for SF: they are the only front locally represented in parliament. Sure, if I would interview every single person in their home, I would find super progressives here and there -- but the point is that they're not a political party of any force."""

And this is the case with ALL western nations. Socialist organisations are extremely small. This is a question communists must address and understand.

Whether SF is represented in parliament is irrelevent. Parliament positions, at least IMO, are not something communists should seek. it should not be the measure of success.

Whether what we propose is superior, is what matters. Capitalism is a complete failure, socialism has been a success. Reality is on our side.

"""There are many obstacles in the way of socialism. One of the greatest is that the majority of people don't currently want it. I don't see how replacing British with Irish and US American troops in Northern Ireland would move you any close to that goal at all."""

Well when you look at the history of British rule in Ireland, you will find that sectarian conflict is created when it is challenged. The NI statelet in particular was arbitrarily created for exactly this purpose.

As long as the British state maintains an ability to undertake and create such division of the working class, through its power over a territory demographically created to maintain its control by fanning the flames of sectarianism, working class movements should fight to end such a capacity.

The government of a united Ireland would not have the capacity to cause such division as such a demographic balance would not exist. The power dynamics would change and sectarian identity would not need to exist.

by Sceptic Fri May 30, 2008 12:19

“Whether what we propose is superior, is what matters. Capitalism is a complete failure, socialism has been a success. Reality is on our side.” – Republican Socialist

If someone can write this and really mean it they are not just deluded – they have parted company with reality entirely. I write as someone who travelled a lot between West Germany and Poland in the 1980s. You could never come to that conclusion if you experienced that contrast for yourself and were honest with yourself.

“Armed republican action is a product of British oppression. It is understandable, and its continued existence is due to the errors made by the British state”. – Republican Socialist

This should be challenged as it ignores the role of free will and choice for individuals in a given situation. During the troubles a small violent minority got up to activities like waiting in the bushes to shoot their protestant neighbours and then running away. Others supported them. But the majority of people chose not to do this or support it because even if they were nationalist minded and could perceive injustices of one kind or another. They had personal moral codes and a formation that would have prohibiting them from killing or supporting killing. They thus got on with their lives finding peaceful outlets for their political views by supporting non-violent nationalist parties like the SDLP, Fine Gael, The Labour Party etc. It was the peaceful majority who built and developed civic society north and south who deserve credit. Not the men of violence they repudiated following the lead of people like John Hume, Garret Fitzgerald, Pope John Paul II, Willy Brant, Jack Lynch and many others.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Fri May 30, 2008 15:01

Johannes wrote:

"As for SF: they are the only front locally represented in parliament. Sure, if I would interview every single person in their home, I would find super progressives here and there -- but the point is that they're not a political party of any force."

So what you are really saying is that it was too difficult to actually make an effort to interview some actually progressive elements, so you interviewed some neo-liberals who like to wear socialist bells on their caps? If you could not find a progressive "political party of any force" then just write that in your report. Deluding yourself and your readers will get you nowhere.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Fri May 30, 2008 15:16

Sceptic, a chara, Republican Socialist is 100% correct when he says capitalism is a failure. You only have to look around you. Famine, war, alienation and tens of millions of people "living on the verge of a nervous breakdown", depending on drink and drugs to numb them to what is going on all around them. I agree that what went on in the soviet block was a total disaster - Im sure thats not what RS was refering to. More likely he was refering to the likes of Venezeula and Cuba. (Cuba with an infant mortality rate on a par with Sweden, well ahead of Ireland, and in stark contrast to US backed neo-liberal regimes in South America.)

As for the second part of your post - well, I agree. Every occupied nation has had more Uncle Toms than Revolutionaries. Of course its much easier to pray and save than oppose imperialism and capitalism. Its much easier to say to yourself that the strong have always crushed the weak - thats natural selection. If the strong can be induced to allow enough scraps to fall from their tables, then we are better to eat those scraps in gratitude than lie in a patriot grave. A few have always, in every nation, thought otherwise.

by Republican Socialist - - Fri May 30, 2008 15:34

""""If someone can write this and really mean it they are not just deluded – they have parted company with reality entirely. I write as someone who travelled a lot between West Germany and Poland in the 1980s. You could never come to that conclusion if you experienced that contrast for yourself and were honest with yourself.""""

West Germany and Poland. And so whats your point? - If I contrasted what?

""""This should be challenged as it ignores the role of free will and choice for individuals in a given situation. During the troubles a small violent minority got up to activities like waiting in the bushes to shoot their protestant neighbours and then running away."""""

It developed from the necesseity of an oppressed sector of society to defend itself against sectarianism and brutality. They made that choice, and in many respects it was the correct one.

Republicanism, for the most part, has never been sectarian, nor targeted protestants.

""""They thus got on with their lives finding peaceful outlets for their political views by supporting non-violent nationalist parties like the SDLP, Fine Gael, The Labour Party etc. It was the peaceful majority who built and developed civic society north and south who deserve credit. """""

They >-WERE-< non-violent, the Civil Rights Movement was non-violent until the British Army and orange sectarian death squads began their attempts to keep the Catholic community from seeking equal rights.

As I mentioned, an armed body of men willing to defend thir community and family from sectarian butchery, is, under such conditions understandable.

by Kevin Murphy - 32 csm Sat May 31, 2008 11:20

"ok, you seem to be complaining about

1) British presence in Northern Ireland (more so than the presence of the forces of any other government in any other territory)""

Believe it or not Im not altogether happy about a foreign governemnt carving up my national territory along sectarian lines . The British governemnt is the only one enforcing this by virtue of thousands of armed troops and locally recruited paramilitary police , as well as other undemocratic mechanisms . Im also unhappy about thousands of US troops passing through my national territory on their way to occupy Iraq at Shannon airport , hence another reason why Im unhappy to see an invite to George Bush

""2) George W Bush's existence

3) George W Bush being invited to Stormont

4) George W Bush being in Northern Ireland rather than any other place on the planet""

Im not complaining about George Bushes existence . Im complaining about an imperialist war criminal being invited to part of my country in order to promote him as a man of peace , and the occupation of part of my country being promoted by him as a path to peace not just in Ireand but globally .

""5) Sinn Féin and Martin McGuinness having invited George W Bush

6) Now last time I checked, Sinn Fein was the clearest parliamentary group complaining about pint 1 as well.""

Im unaware of sinn fein making any complaints about the occupation of my country by Britian . They did in the past but not since they accepted the terms of the British treaty which states that occupation is legitimate .

""Now given that there is still a protestant majority in Northern Ireland, those sharing your views, and who I would see outside of Stormont would then be: anti-parliamentarian, Irish Republican people who distance themselves from Sinn Féin. It is my feeling that that group will not be very representative of the population. And also, it seems to me that you are fronting views that are not exactly allowing many others to join you.""

Im fronting the view that no other country has the right to occupy my nation and carve it up into partitioned entities . Believe it or not thats an extremely popular view in Ireland , indeed the majority view . The majority of political parties in Ireland hold a public position that the country should be united . However in practice they actively collaborate with the British occupation . Its called hypocrisy and corruption . Thats what Im complaining about .

""Take this contradiction:

I get how one can be completely anti-government. Any government anywhere is working in an imperialist way and is suppressing its people. One should therefore be against government anywhere altogether. I probably share a lot of views with those thinking along these lines, although I would probably take it in a softer version in limiting any government's access to controlling the personal lives of people living in a certain area.""

Those are not my views . That is not the basis of my opposition to either the British occupation or George Bushes visit .

""I also get how one can be Irish nationalist, and just want a united Ireland, without having any plans of socialism, etc. . ""

Those are not my views either and not the basis of my opposition to George Bushes invitation

""A third option I can see is being a British nationalist, and just want to be part of Britain.""

not an option for me

""However, I can not get how one can be radical, and simultaneously take about the "British occupation" in one place more than the rest of the Britain, given that there is still a majority being ok with that status in that area. Also, I fail to see the qualitative difference between a Dublin- and a London-based government, given that most of their time is spent on implementing EU guidelines or follow the decisions made through NATO together that are both equally well allied with the country of GWB -- the US of A -- and both helping them, at last indirectly, with their ongoing war effort.""

Well for example . If the United states had assisted the contras to partition a section of Nicaragua , allowed thousands of US troops to be stationed there , allowed the US to artificially prop up the partitioned regions economy with $8 billion dollars per year , supported politicians which called for that partition on the grounds it and the funds pumped were of benefit to their followers ,built a puppet parliament and then called that a democracy most radicals would be quite annoyed about that . Most radicals would regard such a partitoned enclave as an exercise in colonialism . Most radicals would also view any former sandinista officials taking part in such a puppet parliament as traitors , particularly one inviting George Bush to visit it and call it an example of peace democracy throughout the world .

The other issues you discuss surrounding the actions of the southern governemnt on the international stage can someday be solved by democracy . But the forced partition of our national territory cannot , indeed it is an exercise on the thwarting and vetoing of Irish democracy on a national level .

But Im sorry . I completely fail to undertand how any radical or progressive force can be anything but wholly opposed to an exercise in colonialism in any country . An ongoing exercise in colonialism is what we have in Ireland .

"It would be interested to hear what your perspective is. Wouldn't it be something like:

British withdrawal from Northern Ireland, stepping down of Martin McG. and all his fellow politicians to be replaced by your political friends, the disappearing of protestants from Northern Ireland so tat a majority would actually be happy about British withdrawal. Then Irish withdrawal from NATO, EU, etc. . Then stepping down of all Irish politicians who previously have defended the participation in these treaties. Then political opinion shifting in the Republic, and a new, hitherto unknown, party arising, that has never invited anyone they didn't like, like GWB. Then for Northern Irland and the Republic to unite.

…and still I question how all this togetehr rally can be seen as progressive… think about it.

BTW: I am aware that the two groups aren't anti-capitalist, the way I see myself probably. But I took that into account. Please read the conclusion.

Related Link: http://www.johanneswilm.org""

I find the notion that you believe I would call for the disappearance of any section of my national population extremely offensive . I call only for the exercise of democracy throughout my nation and that such democracy not be subverted by foreign imposed vetoes , giving a minority the means to deny democracy and cement foreign occupation . How our country should be run and by whom is a matter for all our people to decide without foreign interference or foreign vetoes which detemine our constituional status . Ireland is not a member of NATO

I also fail to see how any socialist can be prepared to support an exercise in colonialism or to see any contradicitions in a position which is opposed to colonialism and imperialism in Ireland .

by Sceptic Sat May 31, 2008 13:13

For the long duration of the Provo campaign it amounted to killing one’s protestant neighbours. That was the reality. Sneaking around to check somebody’s movements at their home and then shooting them and running away. Nobody’s saying there were not injustices and grievances. But they were not all on one side; there were alternate ways of addressing them and a campaign of killing creates a new set of dreadful injustices on its own. Of course the killers can attempt to justify themselves by reference to historical grievances. But that is not the point. There is and was a choice - to describe people like John Hume, Garret Fitzgerald and Jack Lynch as Uncle Toms is to reveal a viciously sectarian and elitist mindset. Sooner decency than the ethics of Slab and the handiwork of Scap and all the horrors brought about by the Provo campaign.

by Kevin Murphy - 32 csm Sat May 31, 2008 18:18

they did not advocate the Irish nation should lay claim to finchley or Basingstoke , only the Irish nation . Therein lies the inustice , British imperialism in Ireland . Either one supports it or opposes it . The gentlemen youve just outlined above opted to give it their support , therefore fit the Fieldmarshal petain epithet even more than that of uncle Tom . Martin McGuinness and his party are now following the same pro-imperialist policies .
However they reatin the right to shoot you if you disagree . ( see TD OCaoilains " bulwark" speech to Leinster House in response to enda kenny)

by Sceptic Sat May 31, 2008 21:05

“Therein lies the injustice” in your own controversial and cold hearted territorial analysis only and it in no way follows that one must resort to killing as a result based on no mandate or lawful authority from anyone. So we create more injustices by violence to fix the historical injustice of partition and thus we are in a cycle of hate and killing all over again? There is still a free choice to kill or not to kill and in choosing not to kill there is honour and patriotism and decency. People like John Hume would regard killing one's neighbors for nationalism as the very opposite of patriotism - an utter perversion of patriotism, an evil of the highest order, murder most foul. There is no inevitability whatever about killing – it is a choice.

There are civilized and moral ways of dealing with issues based on things like observing basic human rights, democratic mandates and decent peaceable values. Then there are the killers and sowers of terror.

People like John Hume and Jack Lynch and Garret Fitzgerald and those who voted for them were in the first camp. The PIRA and so called 32 csm were/are in the camp of the killers or would be killers or defenders of killings in the past or yet to come if some get their way.

by Kevin Murphy - 32 csm Sat May 31, 2008 22:10

as the arms shipments Britian gave to loyalist semi state gangs have not been surrendered , as thousands of British troops and paramilitary British police in Ireland are still armed to the teeth its clear to me their intentions are to kill if they deem it necessary to maintain British sovereignty over Irish territory . Whether by British legal or British extra-legal measures .
The British take the view that John Hume and Gaerret Fitzgerals whining , obsequeous , unpatriotic , limp wristed handwringing on territory ownership is good advice for Irish people , but theyd nuke anyone who coveted one inch of dear old of blighty . Thats whats known as blatant hypocrisy
As its they who are occupying our country by force and the threat of force your lectures would be better off directed in their direction .

by Republican Socialist - - Sat May 31, 2008 23:21

""""in no way follows that one must resort to killing as a result based on no mandate or lawful authority from anyone""""

As demonstrated by capitalism, property ownership and the quest for surplus value, on a massive unparalleled scale.

But thats ok isnt it, as long as it has an aura of normative formailty and legitimization about it.

""""There is still a free choice to kill or not to kill and in choosing not to kill there is honour and patriotism and decency.""""

Says who? - you?. Wow, your own subjective values. As if your opinions were worth anything. The arrogance of it.

""""People like John Hume would regard killing one's neighbors for nationalism as the very opposite of patriotism""""

But he supported the capitalist market. I find it bizzare that one can both be against killing, and yet support the capitalist market system and private property - the unquestionable causes of war, killing and violence.

He must have been a very confused individual.

""""based on things like observing basic human rights, democratic mandates and decent peaceable values."""""

Human rights? - what, like food, drinkable water, education, healthcare, and a roof. Fascinating. Capitalism must be the polar opposite of it. Something your hero's were proponents of.

Democratic mandate? - so vague, so simplistic as to be meaningless.

""""People like John Hume and Jack Lynch and Garret Fitzgerald and those who voted for them were in the first camp. The PIRA and so called 32 csm were/are in the camp of the killers or would be killers or defenders of killings in the past or yet to come if some get their way.""""

And what is capitalism but the ultimate expression of greed, poverty, killing and injustice?

Those who voted for your capitalist hero's must be exponentially in favour of mass hunger, slaughter and poverty - according to your logic.

Its remarkable the hypocrisy of your like.

by Non-Republican Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:45

One thing that invariably strikes you about defenders of dissident Republicanism in this discussion is the bitterness, anger and hatred that they display to other points of view. Calm down guys, and engage in an occupation more dangerous than firebombing shops - thought.

The core argument might be something like this. Let us admit for the sake of argument that your analysis of what you call the British occupation is absolutely correct. The Big Issue that remains is: did killing people do anything to get rid of it, or did it reinforce sectarian division and make the problem worse? Would a renewed military struggle now or in the foreseeable future advance your goals - or would it reinforce sectarian division, and make things worse? I think that in general it has made division between Irish people worse, and that it is very hard to see how your goal of a united Ireland by military means could be achieved in the teeth of militant opposition by Northern Ireland's Protestants. Your rhetoric and preferred way forward can only make that opposition more intense.

The period where the IRA campaign peaked in the last 80 odd years was the early 1970s - a truly dreadful time to live through. It did not work then. By your own lights, you would have to return Ireland to a level of violence comparable to then and even worse, if you were to create a sufficient destabilisation to hope for a new political dispensation. Just think what this would mean. In all probability, there would be tens of thousands of dead and God knows what other mayhem unleashed. Is it at all likely that this would achieve a 'Brit withdrawal' - or is it more likely that it would firm up Protestant opposition to your plans, while plunging us into a bloody civil war from which there would never be any recovery?

War is a huge undertaking and confers an enormous moral responsibility on those who advocate it, or who romanticise it in the past. After Omagh, Bloody Sunday, Enniskillen, Kingswells and so much blood and strife, it isn't too much to expect those who advocate it today to at least indicate why they think it will be a) successful this time round, and b) offer some insight into why the society it would create would be worth such a massive shedding of human blood.

I think Sceptic makes some excellent points on these issues - issues that militant Republicans seem incapable of answering, preferring instead to display such depths of anger, hatred and self righteousness that most decent people just turn away in disgust. RSF and 32CSM have close on zero support North or South. That at least offers some hope for a decent and peaceful future, which is what most peopel are really and rightly concerned with.

by tomeile Sun Jun 01, 2008 13:16

"One thing that invariably strikes you about defenders of dissident Republicanism in this discussion is the bitterness, anger and hatred that they display to other points of view."

There is often a certain amount of rancour in Irish politics - but it doesn't just come from the republican side as their opponents frequently seem to think. I've been reading through the posts from Kevin Murphy and Republican Socialist on this thread and haven't come across anything from either of them that could be described as bitter ,angry or hateful . Please be specific Non-republican .

by Non-Republican Sun Jun 01, 2008 13:35

It is a fair point that rancour isn't something only Republicans can display. But, on this thread, how about:
'The British take the view that John Hume and Gaerret Fitzgerals whining , obsequeous , unpatriotic , limp wristed handwringing on territory ownership is good advice for Irish people , but theyd nuke anyone who coveted one inch of dear old of blighty . Thats whats known as blatant hypocrisy.'

I'd say that labelling an opponent as 'whining , obsequeous , unpatriotic , limp wristed handwringing' is pretty rancourous stuff. People have different views of Republicanism. I am opposd to it for example. I have thought long and hard about this. It is important to recoignsie that when people disagree with you they might have what they regard as good reasons, and they aren't all doing it because they are 'whining' or because they are hypocrites. If your first recourse in debate is to assert that they are, it rather cuts debate off at the knees.

by Republican Socialist - - Sun Jun 01, 2008 15:59

""""The Big Issue that remains is: did killing people do anything to get rid of it, or did it reinforce sectarian division and make the problem worse?""""

Well firstly, Republicanism does not necessarily equal armed struggle and killing. This topic is about republicanism and whether it is a progressive force, and not any particular strand of it.

Secondly, the 'killing' resulted from the British presence in Ireland. It was the British state which created the sectarianism, not the IRA who were virtually non-existent before internment, Bloody sunday and the attacks on the civil rights protestors.

The killing did not get rid of the sectarianism, the killing was a result of it.

There is no point what-so-ever in focusing in on what paramilitaries did. What must be considered, is that they were a product of British oppression.

""""and that it is very hard to see how your goal of a united Ireland by military means could be achieved in the teeth of militant opposition by Northern Ireland's Protestants. Your rhetoric and preferred way forward can only make that opposition more intense. """"

As mentioned above. Republicanism does not equal armed struggle. Infact, Sinn Fein (so-called republicans), eirigi and the IRSP do not favour armed struggle amongst others.

""""The period where the IRA campaign peaked in the last 80 odd years was the early 1970s - a truly dreadful time to live through. It did not work then. By your own lights, you would have to return Ireland to a level of violence comparable to then and even worse, if you were to create a sufficient destabilisation to hope for a new political dispensation. Just think what this would mean. In all probability, there would be tens of thousands of dead and God knows what other mayhem unleashed. Is it at all likely that this would achieve a 'Brit withdrawal' - or is it more likely that it would firm up Protestant opposition to your plans, while plunging us into a bloody civil war from which there would never be any recovery?""""

The ending of the armed struggle and the acceptance of the GFA has not resulted in less killing. The British state has redirected its military to slaughter elsewhere in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Capitalism is the problem, and for its removal Republicans theoretically see the removal of partition as necessary. There can be no peace under the capitalist system.

""""War is a huge undertaking and confers an enormous moral responsibility on those who advocate it, or who romanticise it in the past. After Omagh, Bloody Sunday, Enniskillen, Kingswells and so much blood and strife, it isn't too much to expect those who advocate it today to at least indicate why they think it will be a) successful this time round, and b) offer some insight into why the society it would create would be worth such a massive shedding of human blood.""""

And what is the alternative? - the slaughter of Iraqi's or Afghans or soon to be Iranians? - are they seen as "something else" or "not one of us"?.

""""I think Sceptic makes some excellent points on these issues - issues that militant Republicans seem incapable of answering, preferring instead to display such depths of anger, hatred and self righteousness that most decent people just turn away in disgust. RSF and 32CSM have close on zero support North or South. That at least offers some hope for a decent and peaceful future, which is what most peopel are really and rightly concerned with.""""

Skeptic dosnt have clue what he's talking about. He thinks a totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship like Poland was socialist. Come off it like...

by Non-republican Sun Jun 01, 2008 16:41

RS writes that:

'Well firstly, Republicanism does not necessarily equal armed struggle and killing. This topic is about republicanism and whether it is a progressive force, and not any particular strand of it.

Secondly, the 'killing' resulted from the British presence in Ireland. It was the British state which created the sectarianism, not the IRA who were virtually non-existent before internment, Bloody sunday and the attacks on the civil rights protestors.

The killing did not get rid of the sectarianism, the killing was a result of it.

There is no point what-so-ever in focusing in on what paramilitaries did. What must be considered, is that they were a product of British oppression.'

For many years, his strand of thought advocated a sustained guerrilla struggle. Let us grant that the British presence created sectarianism and every other ill under the sun. People then had a choice of how to respond. Those who adcvocated military struggle did so - presumably - because they felt it would achieve their goals. I have argued that it did the opposite, by intensifying the division (note: not creating the division, but intensifying it). I'm not arguing about how the problems arose, as is RS: I am arguing about what is the most appropriate response. Maybe it is time for a proper retrospective on events post 1968, and a key part of that is querying whether the ethos of military struggle then was part of the solution, or ever could be in the future. I, and most people, would be critical of it. RS doesn't seem to know quite what to argue on this issue. I would say its not enough to lash 'the Brits' - you need to have some assurance that what you did in the past or might do in the future will solve the problems rather than make them worse. I see little evidence that this kind of Republican thinking can offer aything truly progressive.

I suspect that RS holds open the door to the resumption of some form of armed struggle at some point in the future. A deeper analysis of past efforts at this direction would be needed to justify this, rather than just more brit bashing.

by Republican Socialist - - Sun Jun 01, 2008 19:37

My apologies for this response, as i lost the response I had written before I got an error about putting HTML codes in posts (which I didnt).

So ill just put it briefly because im not writing it all again:

1 - it is understandable that angry young men turned towards, and joined the IRA, to defend their communities, given the conditions.

2 - It is understandable the subsequent armed struggle, who's membership and leadership consisted of those who experienced the troubles first hand, or who's volunteers came from a family or community where the memories of the troubles were fresh, with the folklore and hatred of the British passed on. In a sense, it was part emotional, and continues in its various forms today.

3 - The "appropriateness" of the IRA struggle and campaign in the early 60's and 50s is irrelevent to this discussion. The causes of its re-emergence as a force with popular support in many quarters is what matters.

4 - From 1, a response to defend the catholic community through military action was appropriate, and justified.

5 - This defence naturally turned into an offensive campaign against the causes of oppression, namely, the British state, partly fueled emotionally. Whether this was an appropriate action is questionable, but understandable nonetheless.

6 - What methods republicans undertake now, logically, will differ from those of the past, given that what occurred in the past developed from the troubles. This is demonstrated in the reduction in support for armed struggle and the emergence of new, non-violent groups and strategies, namely, eirigi and the INLA ceasefire.

7 - I dont rule out armed struggle. Armed struggle in itself, does not create sectarianism. It is the identification that Britains occupation is the cause of working class division along sectarian lines, preventing unity, that requires the ending of partition. Sectarianism will exist, armed struggle or no armed struggle, while the British state maintains a presence and while a struggle to subvert it exists.

8 - Focusing on the failures of the armed struggle, and pointing the blame at paramilitary failures, takes the focus off that which spawned them, and will continue to spawn them, and shows a lack of understanding for their existence past and present.

That was the jist of what i wrote. Please point out where you disagree.

by Non-Republican Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:13

I accept RS's point that it was 'understandable' why so many people in the North felt that an armed struggle was their only option. It is also understandable why they felt that it should go beyond defensive purposes and assume an offensive character, designed to drive out 'the Brits' and achieve a united Ireland by force. My point is simply that this offensive war, however understandable, never had a hope of achieving its goals. There are many reasons for this - not least being the demonstrable impossibility of vaulting over the militant opposition of a million Protestants, and imposing on them a settlement which I believe events show would only evoke desperate resistance from them. Thus, rather than a united Ireland, mayhem, bloodletting on a horrific scale, chaos and God knows what else would follow. It follows from this that, however 'understandable' such an approach is, it is an error, and not a small one. In like vein, it might be 'understandable' that people resort to alcohol or drugs under certain stressful conditions - but it remains an error, and a right they may possess but which they would be better advised not to exercise. In declaring that he does not 'rule out' armed struggle in the future, though he thankfully disavows it in the immediate present, I fear that RS has not fully grasped the extent of the futility and failures of his movement and project in the past 40 years. I see little sense in leaving open the door to a tactic which has been tried repeatedly, and has failed repeatedly (at a dreadful cost), over many decades.

As to whether it is sensible to focus on these issues, rather than the perfidity of 'the Brits', I think it is justified. Many dissident Republicans clearly want a return to their war at some point. So much suffering has been caused by the past one, I think it fair to suggest a stopping time for reflection. Before any such tactic is ever reinitiated so much needs to be thought out from the ground up. I am not convinced that Brit bashing, however enjoyable, achieves anything, or will equip people to draw worthwhile lessons from our bloody past.

by Republican Socialist - -- Mon Jun 02, 2008 21:10

""""My point is simply that this offensive war, however understandable, never had a hope of achieving its goals.""""

I would say that there is not much reason to discuss this. Discussing it entails looking at the ideology, beliefs and political positions of those (or more appropriately, the leadership) who undertook the armed struggle - without focus on the cause and emotional reasons of why it grew to exist.

And if I can use this analogy, suppose at some stage the 'Celtic Wolves' (neo-nazi group in Ireland) grew in membership over the next 20 years to the point where they could undertake other political activities. What do we do. Do we look at their vision for a 'greater Germania', and the feasability of their project? - shall we look into the pseudo-science of eugenics? - Do we actually analyse their political philosophy? - I would put it, No, we dont. Its a waste of time, and could only serve the purposes of educating against it.

Similarly, and I dont mean to contrast the republican struggle with that filth, but looking at whether the armed struggle "had a hope of achieving its goals" is in similar effect. It avoides the entire point. It avoids the causes, the emotional motivations and material conditions as to why it existed and came into being.

We would look at the Celtic Wolves hypothetical growth and look at the social and economic reasons for it, excluding any bother with what they "hoped they would achieve", which could be pure fantasy for all I care.

And this is why it comes back to an understanding of why those who volunteered, 'volunteered'. It comes back to looking at what caused people to undertake an armed struggle (whether it would succeed or not). We look at fascism and what causes it, capitalism, not whether its feasable or not.

And sorry to repeat it again, but whether the armed struggle had a hope of achieving its goals is beside the point entirely. It means being distracted by a cul-de-sac line of inquiry which only leads to 'IRA Bashing', without understanding the causes that created it.

""""n like vein, it might be 'understandable' that people resort to alcohol or drugs under certain stressful conditions - but it remains an error, and a right they may possess but which they would be better advised not to exercise.""""

And this is actually a good comparison, because yes, it is understandable, and it is where we look at the causes of addiction, and what turns people to it. We look at the limited choices available to these people through economic, social and cultural circumstances, that is, if we are looking for solutions to the problems.

We dont look at 'what their goal was' taking to drink. We dont look at 'what a persons goal' was attempting suicide. This is a cul-de-sac. What we look at are the causes of their action, be it addiction or suicide or armed struggle.

Its not simply an 'error'. Addiction is not an 'error', suicide is not an 'error', nor a person turning to sleeping ruff and homeless - they are the result of choices, limited and influenced by a given set of conditions. As is/was the armed struggle.

""""In declaring that he does not 'rule out' armed struggle in the future, though he thankfully disavows it in the immediate present, I fear that RS has not fully grasped the extent of the futility and failures of his movement and project in the past 40 years. I see little sense in leaving open the door to a tactic which has been tried repeatedly, and has failed repeatedly (at a dreadful cost), over many decades.""""

I dont rule it out, infact i agree with socialist organisations having a military capacity. Military action can work, it can have its effects. It depends under what conditions it can be advantageously used. Those conditions change, and armed struggle could have its day and it would be foolish to 'rule something out'. There should be a fresh look and focus on the British occupation and republicans should develop strategies for success, that means considering various actions available and looking at the conditions present.

""""So much suffering has been caused by the past one, I think it fair to suggest a stopping time for reflection. Before any such tactic is ever reinitiated so much needs to be thought out from the ground up.""""

And I completely agree with you. Republicanism must keep apace with the times, and not be carried away by strategies developed under an older set of conditions, but rather to reflect and asses the direction to take at present.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Tue Jun 03, 2008 14:11

Sceptic, I dont know why Im bothering, but that post about the PIRA campaign being about killing Protestants was absolute garbage. Warrenpoint was an excellent operation, was that about killing Protestant neighbours? I could list hundreds of other outstanding military operations undertaking by brave Irish patriots against an enemy with vastly superior weaponry.

by rooster Wed Jun 04, 2008 16:33

"Sceptic, I dont know why Im bothering, but that post about the PIRA campaign being about killing Protestants was absolute garbage. Warrenpoint was an excellent operation, was that about killing Protestant neighbours? I could list hundreds of other outstanding military operations undertaking by brave Irish patriots against an enemy with vastly superior weaponry."

I could also list hundreds of other examples of terrorists killing their neighbours and so further entrenching the views of the people in Northern Ireland.

by not the cause Wed Jun 04, 2008 16:48

Yet unlike Cael and Republican Socialist you do not address the root cause of conflict in Ireland - the British presence. I do not know what RS suggests forward but RSF, of which Cael is a supporter, has been putting forward Eire Nua for decades. It is the sole Irish authored peace formula that unlike the GFA realises that to fix a problem you must actually address it.

by Sceptic Wed Jun 04, 2008 21:20

The last post presupposes that it is agreed or plain to see that the root cause of the problem is the British presence. Many more would say the problem is a divided society not the British presence at all. Even if it were a shared assumption that the “root cause” of the problem is the British presence it does not follow that embarking upon a sustained campaign of violence is the only acceptable means of putting the situation to rights. The problem with you people is your inability to see beyond your own narrow minded analysis of the problem, your intolerance by way of name calling and dismissal of those (the majority) who have a different view and the moral vacuum at the heart of your thinking that sees violence as the only solution. In fact its not that you think violence will bring about a united Ireland, as it hasn’t and won’t, but that it makes you feel good and saves you the trouble of doing any new thinking outside of the graveyard politics of militant nationalism.

by Republican Socialist - - Wed Jun 04, 2008 22:27

Lord Randolph Churchill : ""play the Orange card. Let us hope it turns out the ace and not the two.”"

The British have been doing it since the 1700's. And yet we still have people like sceptic who dont cop-on that the British presence creates sectarianism.

Republicanism has - NEVER - been sectarian in its goals. The same cannot be said of the Orange order or unionism. I thought that would be obvious, but clearly not.

by rooster Thu Jun 05, 2008 01:18

"It is the sole Irish authored peace formula that unlike the GFA realises that to fix a problem you must actually address it."

mate, its got virtually no support on the island of ireland so why would we ditch all the progress we've made over the last ten years for some crack pot scheme that has zero chance of success?

by rooster Thu Jun 05, 2008 01:26

"Republicanism has - NEVER - been sectarian in its goals. The same cannot be said of the Orange order or unionism. I thought that would be obvious, but clearly not."

Perhaps it has never been sectarian in its goals but it has been vehemently sectarian in the pursuit of those goals.

by Republican Socialist - - Thu Jun 05, 2008 01:53

"Perhaps it has never been sectarian in its goals but it has been vehemently sectarian in the pursuit of those goals."

Given the nature of paramilitary goups, and the conditions which were present, sectarian actions can and have occured. There was alot of 'baiting' going on with establishment collusion, trying to provoke such sectarian reactions from the republican movement.

Republicans are not sectarian in mind nor ideology, and thats an important thing to consider.

by Sceptic Thu Jun 05, 2008 16:10

Going back to Randolph Churchill and Bonar Law etc over and over to justify attacking your Perfidious Albion is a rather threadbare tactic at this stage as is implying they are part of a continuing syndrome of significance. Yes there were opportunist conservative politicians but those days are long gone and gone forever. In any case it was not an illegitimate thing in itself for English politicians to make common cause with Ulster unionists in resisting Home Rule so long as they did not stray from the constitutional path. The real problem was the unionist population mobilizing from 1886 to the height of the Ulster Crisis in 1912. Don’t forget the Liberals supported Home Rule and initially tried to prevent separate treatment for Ulster. It was events on the ground in Ulster that determined the fate of the north under independence. Inconvenient fact: there was nothing either the British Government or the Irish Home Rulers could do about the Ulster problem except make special treatment for Ulster. Sinn Fein (1916 to 1923) thought that by ignoring the problem altogether it would go away but the situation just became more extreme and violent and the eventual settlement a more raw and sectarian affair than it might otherwise have been had the Redominites continued to hold sway. Anyway what is the point of continuing violence – you will just get more Birminghams and Warringtons and other atrocities where the innocent are destroyed. You might not give a damn about that but enough people do to be horrified and reject you.

As for the Orange Order they in no excusing bigotry where it occurs and historically there has been no shortage of it from that quarter. However it is a religious organisation and a product of the Reformation and defines itself in opposition to Catholicism and this is reflected in its make up. But neither is that an excuse for the killing of Orangemen by the IRA which did occur. Nor because the IRA was nominally secular does it get them off the sectarian hook. Basically they were made up of Catholics (at least they invariably go to that Church to be buried) and the people they killed were primarily protestants given that most unionists and members of the security forces were protestants and the primary aim was to shoot, bomb and generally terrorize the protestant population until the IRA could “prevail” with its half baked Eire Nua and 32 Country Socialist (meaning Marxist pre 1989) policies. It’s not just your own self perception that counts – you fellas in your shebeens can probably convince yourselves you are the last word in non-sectarianism but think how you are perceived by others and how it looks when every other day a protestant man is shot by your local (RC) RA “volunteers”.

Pace Randolph Churchill were there injustices visited on Ireland in all of this? Yes and if one wants the whole litany from Henry II to the Border Commission and all points in between I could recite it myself. But it is not a simple as “the British presence” unless you are going to ethnically cleanse the many that fully support that same British presence. But you cannot do that and you have created a good few injustices yourselves with over 2,000 dead at the hands of the IRA. The people of Ireland don’t want Irish unity by force. They want it by consent if it is to be had at all and the decision will be made in Ireland and not in London. Above all they don’t want more killing in the north or bombs anywhere. They also don’t want to overturn the economic and social order. There are happy enough with things the way they are. For all the problems there is zilch support for your latter day Marxist revolution presumably to be achieved violently as well. No way.

by Republican Socialist - - Fri Jun 06, 2008 14:00

Whats amazing about what you have wrote, is that you have managed to write three longish paragraphs that are completely devoid of any content or explanation - and in effect - are pointless reading.

All you have done throughout this thread, and by which your 'argument' is based, are 1) denial that the British occupation is what causes sectarianism without giving any counter explanation 2) Propounding that the IRA and the armed struggle 'cause' sectarianism, and while avoiding the reasons as to why they emerged in strength in the first place - which might, you know, link back to point one - but shhhh...blank that out.

Add to this, a series of totally ignorant comments about your holidays in Poland as if your experiences there were an argument against socialism, or had any relevent purpose what-so-ever to this discussion. And then you go on listing off your pro-capitalist hero's as if their system were somehow any better, or humane (LOL).

Is it really worth engaging with you? - denial - ignorance - avoidance and a sort of innate dislike of republicans and socialists just about sums your entire contribution to this topic.

""Above all they don’t want more killing in the north or bombs anywhere. They also don’t want to overturn the economic and social order. There are happy enough with things the way they are. For all the problems there is zilch support for your latter day Marxist revolution presumably to be achieved violently as well. No way. ""

Says the spokesperson for the Irish people.....

And just to play along with your little game. Why did Fianna Fail get elected into government again, given that they facilitate both wars and the manufacture of killing machines?

I can only conclude that the Irish people DO want killing, wars and bombs, no?

Maybe they dont have supprt for 'my' "marxist violence", but they do for the bombing and maiming of millions in Afghanistan and Iraq? - or the shipment of apache helicopter components to god knows what regimes?

They must, seeing as they voted in a government happy with this setup - or at least around 10% did.

by Sceptic Sat Jun 07, 2008 09:56

Insofar as the Irish people’s will can be discerned by the way they consistently vote north and south their view is that they do not want a Marxist revolution or to overthrow capitalism as you see it. It is a reasonable assumption if an obvious one that should not need to be spelt out. What makes you think the Irish people support your view on overturning the economic and social order or do you claim popular support for view? Since there is no pubic support for your view your new order can only be brought about by terror presumably?

by Cael - Sinn Féin Sat Jun 07, 2008 21:57

Certainly, there have been sectarian elements in the Republican Movement. There have also been British civil rights protestors like
Adams and McGuinness. Neither one of these elements should have been tolerated in the ranks, and the RM has paid a very high price for its mistake. However, this does not mean that the RM is either sectarian or a British constitutional civil rights movement. Sceptic has said that the problem in the 06 may not be the British presence, but the divided nature of the society. I take it that he understands that societies do not become devided without cause. That cause is the British occupation, or the native resistance to it, depending on your view. The view of "official" Ireland is that if the resistance can be castrated then the problem will be solved - hense the support for the GFA. This may very well turn out to be the case if the RM does not add the native Landlord class to its list of targets and incorporate the Land War into the War of National Liberation. However, I am confident that the RM has taken this obvious fact on board.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Sat Jun 07, 2008 22:16

Sceptic wrote:

"Insofar as the Irish people’s will can be discerned by the way they consistently vote north and south their view is that they do not want a Marxist revolution or to overthrow capitalism as you see it. It is a reasonable assumption if an obvious one that should not need to be spelt out. What makes you think the Irish people support your view on overturning the economic and social order or do you claim popular support for view? Since there is no pubic support for your view your new order can only be brought about by terror presumably?"

Given that 1% of the population "own" over 50% of the land and that 5% "own" 40% of all wealth in Ireland, and that the Irish economic elite have chosen to expoirt thier ill-gotten gains (to the tune of 1.2 trillion euro) rather than invest it in Irish industry, are you trying to tell us that the other 95% of us are so stupid as to actually want this status quo?

You shouldnt confuse the way people vote in elections with the way they actually think. People tend to vote for what they consider the best of the bad lot that actually have a chance of getting in.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Sun Jun 08, 2008 20:52

Anyway, the guy who started this thread seems to have done a runner. Maybe he didnt like the response he got?

by Liam Mon Jun 09, 2008 09:48

Neither the mainstream republican movement nor the various splinter factions can claim any form of radical position. They are both buried in the dogma of the past and have nothing to over the working class of this country.

by Republican Socialist - - Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:58

Thank you for your empty assertions liam. Care to actually EXPLAIN it now?

by Republican Socialist - - Mon Jun 09, 2008 15:46

""""Insofar as the Irish people’s will can be discerned by the way they consistently vote north and south their view is that they do not want a Marxist revolution or to overthrow capitalism as you see it. It is a reasonable assumption if an obvious one that should not need to be spelt out. """"

Yeah, so getting back to the questions that I asked. I take it that the Irish people support the slaughter going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are happy to facilitate this? I also take it that they support the manfacture of weapon components, along with the export of military vehicles (Timoney) to nations engaging in such wars (Australia) in and from Ireland?

It can only be concluded, and according to your 'logic', that the Irish people support war, death, maiming, torture and everything else that goes along with it. And then also the export of military hardware to regimes that use the apache helicopter including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Pakistan and Singapore.

""""What makes you think the Irish people support your view on overturning the economic and social order or do you claim popular support for view? Since there is no pubic support for your view your new order can only be brought about by terror presumably? """

I never advocated any armed struggle at present, nor have I said either that a socialist revolution was supported at present. Both your premises are wrong.

by Sceptic Mon Jun 09, 2008 16:27

Cael you are on your land war hobby horse again except its reality exists in your head and nowhere else. In fact both jurisdictions in Ireland are property owning democracies. Ireland is notable for the high level of farm and home ownership by international standards – this should give even you pause for thought. The land war is a confection you have dreamed up after reading too much “Marx for Dummies” in the small hours or its equivalent.

Republican Socialist: I am not sure why you are going on about Iraq and Afghanistan in this context as Irish popular opinion on these is largely untested and in any case people can see the two issues as different. Iraq was a war of choice for the US administration in 2003 whereas the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 was thrust upon it because the former Afghan regimes connivance with Al Qaeda. Each mission has a UN mandate now and it is wrong to be going on in a polemical way about “slaughter”. With the defeat of Al Qaeda in Anbar the slaughter has mostly stopped in Iraq. And the ones doing the slaughter in Afghanistan are the Taliban insurgents with their suicide bombs in markets and their burning alive of girl children they discover going to school. That is an enemy that it is right to resist.

You still try to avoid the question of the unionists by going on about the British. In fact Ireland divided itself into two antagonist camps in the period of ferment between the 1880’s and 1922. The British at the latter stage would have preferred a united Ireland in the commonwealth than partition but they also had responsibilities as the sovereign power not just to walk away and repudiate sovereignty. The end result was a settlement with partition and was inevitable in the circumstances. It’s a republican deceit and fantasy that the problem lays with the Brits and not with the unionists. Even if the Brits walked away unionism would block the way towards a united Ireland. Also the Brits do not cause bigotry. We are capable of generating that ourselves arsing from the profound differences between the Irish nationalists and the Ulster British.

by Republican Socialist - -- Mon Jun 09, 2008 21:01

"""Republican Socialist: I am not sure why you are going on about Iraq and Afghanistan in this context as Irish popular opinion on these is largely untested and in any case people can see the two issues as different. Iraq was a war of choice for the US administration in 2003 whereas the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 was thrust upon it because the former Afghan regimes connivance with Al Qaeda. Each mission has a UN mandate now and it is wrong to be going on in a polemical way about “slaughter”. With the defeat of Al Qaeda in Anbar the slaughter has mostly stopped in Iraq. And the ones doing the slaughter in Afghanistan are the Taliban insurgents with their suicide bombs in markets and their burning alive of girl children they discover going to school. That is an enemy that it is right to resist. """

I bring it up only because you are also going on in a 'polemical' way about 'Republicans' killing protestants. To this discussion, I just dont know why it is even relevant.

All I have argued is that it is 'understandable' that such an 'armed struggle' developed from the conditions that were present. To understand it means that what was done, developed from the conditions that existed, and that the details of what occurred are pointless discussing in the context of this topic, and has no bearings whatsoever as to whether "republicanism is progressive".

I never advocated armed struggle at the present time, nor what happened in the past. So if you stop bringing into it that the 'Irish people' dont support killing" or whatever, then I will stop with the Iraq Afghan talk also, which could only lead somewhere else due to my disagreements with what you have wrote there aswell.

"""You still try to avoid the question of the unionists by going on about the British. In fact Ireland divided itself into two antagonist camps in the period of ferment between the 1880’s and 1922. The British at the latter stage would have preferred a united Ireland in the commonwealth than partition but they also had responsibilities as the sovereign power not just to walk away and repudiate sovereignty. The end result was a settlement with partition and was inevitable in the circumstances. It’s a republican deceit and fantasy that the problem lays with the Brits and not with the unionists. Even if the Brits walked away unionism would block the way towards a united Ireland. Also the Brits do not cause bigotry. We are capable of generating that ourselves arsing from the profound differences between the Irish nationalists and the Ulster British. """

I maintain that 'Unionism' and 'Loyalism are identities created amongst people due to the British presence. Similarly, 'nationalism' and the division of NI into communities more or less along religious grounds.

Republicanism, nationalism, loyalism and unionism would not need to exist as cultural identities if there were a united Ireland. Aspects of the 'Eire Nua' plan address this also.

To achieve socialism, there must be unity, and that is the goal of republican socialism. I am not ignoring the 'unionists'. But that is the question for republicans - "What about the unionists"?

Republicanism has to address these problems which have been neglected in the past and a fresh approach should be taken.

The thing is sceptic, if you follow a different line of thought on the issue, with completely different premises, then its just not possible for either of us to debate as we are coming from two different directions on the issue. 'Non-Republican' for example, or even the thread starter, probably have alot of common ground with myself, and so there is a level of understanding there and 'logical' arguments can be put forth. If you follow a different logic, then we just wont understand where each other are coming from. I accuse you of naming off your 'capitalist hero's, you accuse me of supporting a 'tried and failed' system.

The problem is ideological, you have a particular 'branch', I have another, and neither are compatible. This way, i dont accept your arguments nor you mine, and there is no understanding and we get nowhere.

So ill leave it at that, otherwise ill be repeating the same arguments over and i dont want to.

by kevin murphy - 32 csm Tue Jun 10, 2008 05:53

Sceptics points show a clear allergy for the concept and practice of national democracy , a common trait among all cheerleaders for British imperialism. His argument that Ireland divided itself is nothing only a mockery of peoples intelligence .
Britian has always sought to subvert the practice of national democracy in Ireland by encouraging a national minority , unionism , to insulate itself from national democracy . Whilst all manner of concessions can be made by democrats to the unionist community no concession can be made upon the principle of national democracy . It must be upheld . Anyone advocating the suppression of national democracy is both backward and unprogressive .

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Tue Jun 10, 2008 16:07

Sceptic wrote:

"In fact both jurisdictions in Ireland are property owning democracies. Ireland is notable for the high level of farm and home ownership by international standards – this should give even you pause for thought."

And 1% of the population in the 26 "own" over 50% of the land ( a much higher percentage of valuable land). That should give even you pause for thought - unless you are one of the 1%, in which case your statements may have some logic from an entirely egocentric perspective.

by Republican Socialist - - Tue Jun 10, 2008 18:17

Thats an interesting statistic Ceal. Have you any links to this?

I heard of the 1% owning 36% of financial wealth and the other figures produced by BOI, but never came across those land figures.

Very interesting indeed. Iv been compiling such statistics here: http://theplough.proboards57.com/index.cgi?board=genera...d=684

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Tue Jun 10, 2008 22:13

Have a look at the related link

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Tue Jun 10, 2008 22:20

Interesting list, but I think that 1% actually account for more wealth than you have given them. The ERSI says that Irish nationals have bought foreign land and building worth 1200 billion euro. I would like to see an accurate break down, but I think we can be assured that the 20% of the population that live in poverty account for none of this 1200 billion.

by Sceptic Wed Jun 11, 2008 21:31

"Britain has always sought to subvert the practice of national democracy in Ireland by encouraging a national minority.."

This is just assertion and republican legend again. Prove it. Try reading about Carson from a proper historian. Britain had nothing to do with the decisions and convictions of Carson the effective founder of unionism. He was a Dublin man who decided for himself that he wanted to remain in the UK and would agitate towards that. It was the same with the Orange Order in the late 19th century which in any case was more non-conformist than Anglican and therefore rather unenglish. Gladstone and his ruling Liberal party in the 1880s actively opposed to and and discouraged unionism. These are facts albeit ones that ill fit into your historical narrative such as it is.

by Republican Socialist - - Thu Jun 12, 2008 13:07

""Interesting list, but I think that 1% actually account for more wealth than you have given them. The ERSI says that Irish nationals have bought foreign land and building worth 1200 billion euro. I would like to see an accurate break down, but I think we can be assured that the 20% of the population that live in poverty account for none of this 1200 billion.""

Thanks for the link Cael. Thats a good point you make. Foreign property isnt accounted for and that would changed the statistic significantly. Dont forget the offshore bank accounts too! We could never fully know, but the statistics as-is are disgusting.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Thu Jun 12, 2008 22:59

Indeed they are disgusting, a chara. If you dont mind, I'll post your list on the IRBB and give a link to your original post. Its the kind of information that we need to make people aware of.

by Republican Socialist - - Fri Jun 13, 2008 13:04

Great, thanks for that Cael.

Some of the statistics might be out of date by most are quite recent.