PDA

View Full Version : Joe Higgins The Red John Redmond? Socialist Party and Nationalism, are they unionists?



People Korps
27-09-2010, 04:39 PM
I've no time for any bourgeois politicians or figureheads John. All puppets of the ruling class. No, I'm not a sticky. Even lower on your list I'm sure. I'm a Marxist from the Trotskyist tradition. Socialist Party to be exact.


The Socialist Party, surely that should be the Unionist Socialist Party, as you advocate a four state union ireland, Scotland , Wales and England. I refer you to my blog post on this

Joe Higgins- The Red John Redmond

The vehemence of Joe Higgins’ opposition to the EU sets him apart from others in the left no camp- even Sinn Fein profess to be pro Europe. However this may be understood in an examination of the underlying ideology of the Socialist party. That ideology is essentially Unionist insofar as it deals with the concept of Irish Sovereignty, as can be seen in the two following expositions of the party position.

Socialist Party puts forward a socialist solution, calling for the struggle against the bosses, the sectarian-based political parties and for a new society as the way to overcome the deep sectarian divisions. The party stands for a socialist Ireland, as part of a voluntary socialist federation of Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland.

http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/archive/histconnolly.htm

Troubled Times by Peter Hadden

chapter 14

A socialist federation means a federation in the true sense, achieved through negotiation and agreement and with no element of compulsion. When we put forward our slogan of a socialist federation of Britain and Ireland, we add the rider on a free and voluntary basis'. We need to do so because of Ireland's long history of domination by England and because the concept of a federation has been debased both by the USSR and by those capitalist states who misuse the term.

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/tt/00.html


Four legs good two legs bad. The intellectual contortions in this position would defy most yoga enthusiasts. Ireland entered the EU voluntarily, and according to Joe the EU doesn’t work. The main advocate of compulsion in Ireland’s international relations was Britain, yet a leading advocate of the no side is advocating a federation with our closest neighbour and former imperial master, despite ‘Ireland's long history of domination by England’ (This irony was obviously lost on the Sinn Fein councillor who defected to the socialist party in northern Ireland).

Euro federalism would be a step too far for many on the yes side yet anglo federalism is ok for a leading advocate on the no side. Maybe Joe should enlighten us on the foreign policy of his party.

From a historical perspective the best analogy for Joe’s call for a no vote is John Redmond’s call in 1914 for Irishmen to serve Britain wherever the frontline extended. see http://peoplekorps.blogspot.com/2009/09/joe-higgins-red-john-redmond_1054.html (http://peoplekorps.blogspot.com/2009/09/joe-higgins-red-john-redmond_1054.html)

and the thread on politics.ie Joe Higgins The Red John Redmond?
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/101618-joe-higgins-red-john-redmond-unionism-socialist-party.html

Aspro
27-09-2010, 04:42 PM
Ah yeah I read that nonsense before. We've had people taking pot shots at us from all walks of republicanism and none who can't or won't stretch their minds to understand our position. To quote from one of my comrades: "The position of the SP is often misinterpreted and sometimes disingenuously misrepresented. Nationalism has been an obstacle to the development of class-based politics in many parts of the world, Ireland included - and any national policy of a socialist organisation has to be seen in that context. The idea of a voluntary federation (note that word 'voluntary') is specifically an attempt to offer a solution to the national question in NI which would allow people from both sides of the sectarian divide to feel their identities and right to self-determination are recognised.

The SP is not unionist - this would suggest that we feel Irish sovereignty ought to be surrendered to Britain. That would just make no sense - I mean, what socialist goal could possibly be served by such a policy? As an internationalist organisation we advocate federation and cooperation on a wide international scale. However, the programme of any party has to be based on the world as it actually exists at the time - to have any hope of raising class politics above the sectarian divisions in NI it is necessary to make it clear that socialism can accommodate both identities."

But this has nothing to do with David Norris. Sorry mods, guilty again.

People Korps
27-09-2010, 04:55 PM
Ah yeah I read that nonsense before. We've had people taking pot shots at us from all walks of republicanism and none who can't or won't stretch their minds to understand our position. To quote from one of my comrades: "The position of the SP is often misinterpreted and sometimes disingenuously misrepresented. Nationalism has been an obstacle to the development of class-based politics in many parts of the world, Ireland included - and any national policy of a socialist organisation has to be seen in that context. The idea of a voluntary federation (note that word 'voluntary') is specifically an attempt to offer a solution to the national question in NI which would allow people from both sides of the sectarian divide to feel their identities and right to self-determination are recognised.

The SP is not unionist - this would suggest that we feel Irish sovereignty ought to be surrendered to Britain. That would just make no sense - I mean, what socialist goal could possibly be served by such a policy? As an internationalist organisation we advocate federation and cooperation on a wide international scale. However, the programme of any party has to be based on the world as it actually exists at the time - to have any hope of raising class politics above the sectarian divisions in NI it is necessary to make it clear that socialism can accommodate both identities."

But this has nothing to do with David Norris. Sorry mods, guilty again.



now back to you just on population basis who would have the biggest population in your federation (aka Union ), I dont suppose it would be England. How would Ireland with 5 million population be able to have an equal say in the Socialist Union (Federation). Get real you are unionists.

I have no doubt you have heard of this before not only was the Pie thread a runner but my blog got quite a lot of hits on this and the name Red John Redmond still hangs over poor Joe's husk.

BOZG
27-09-2010, 05:25 PM
now back to you just on population basis who would have the biggest population in your federation (aka Union ), I dont suppose it would be England. How would Ireland with 5 million population be able to have an equal say in the Socialist Union (Federation). Get real you are unionists.

How would Ireland have an equal say in a Socialist Federation of Europe or of the world?

antiestablishmentarian
27-09-2010, 05:26 PM
now back to you just on population basis who would have the biggest population in your federation (aka Union ), I dont suppose it would be England. How would Ireland with 5 million population be able to have an equal say in the Socialist Union (Federation). Get real you are unionists.

I have no doubt you have heard of this before not only was the Pie thread a runner but my blog got quite a lot of hits on this and the name Red John Redmond still hangs over poor Joe's husk.

Here's the definition of our position on the party programme:
We are for a socialist solution - working class unity to bring about a socialist Ireland as a free and voluntary part of a socialist federation of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales and, on a wider scale, of a socialist European federation.

http://www.socialistparty.net/home/about-us

Its not a unionist position unless you define European unity as being unionist too, because ultimately any federation would be continent wide and not confined to this corner of the world. We want a united all-island socialist Ireland, as part of such a federation, but unionist workers in the north are entitled to self-determination too if they felt threatened of being coerced into an all-Ireland state.

People Korps
27-09-2010, 05:43 PM
For a start the EU is not a federation. Is a federation not a union?
eg the USA, a federal republic.
As the SP sights are set locally first it is fair to say they want the Act of Union back but with stars and hammers and not crowns and miters.

Jolly Red Giant
27-09-2010, 05:47 PM
For a start the EU is not a federation. Is a federation not a union?
eg the USA, a federal republic.
As the SP sights are set locally first it is fair to say they want the Act of Union back but with stars and hammers and not crowns and miters.
Yawn - Yawn - Yawn - don't feed the ubbertroll.

People Korps
27-09-2010, 05:49 PM
Yawn - Yawn - Yawn - don't feed the ubbertroll.
You had a lot to say about this before but they wore you out on Pie. SP cadre I think the ward boss is ordering you to do something.

Jolly Red Giant
27-09-2010, 05:55 PM
You had a lot to say about this before but they wore you out on Pie. SP cadre I think the ward boss is ordering you to do something.

If you have read the thread that is on p.ie (where this entire issue has been done in great detail) why the hell just go and post more of the nonsense on here. The only conclusion that anyone can draw from this is that you are indeed trolling.

I have no problem in engaging in a constructive debate with anyone on any aspect of Socialist Party policy. You, however, are not in the least bit interested in constructive debate and are merely trying to score old, dull and very poor political points.

PES activist
27-09-2010, 06:02 PM
Joe Higgin's micro-party has long been known to favour the re-entry of Ireland to a re-formed United Kingdom, although this time called a "socialist federation". Why is this? Why the UK? Why not a socialist federation with France, or perhaps just with an independent Scotland ... or maybe even with Iceland?

The SP comrades are clearly committed to the resurrection, albeit under a different name, of a prior relationship that the people of much of this country spent an awful lot of time, effort and pain getting out from under. "Voluntary" or otherwise, and "voluntary" is a word that brings a wry smile to the lips of those familiar with the views of the Trotskyite fringe, what possible advantage would rejoining a re-formed United Kingdom offer the Irish people?

antiestablishmentarian
27-09-2010, 06:06 PM
Joe Hoggin's Socialist Pary has long been known to favour the re-entry of Ireland to a re-formed United Kingdom, although this time called a "socialist federation". Why is this? Why not a socialist federation with France, or perhaps just with an independent Scotland ... or maybe even with Rockall!

The SP comrades are clearly committed to the resurrection, albeit under a different name, of a prior relationship that the people of much of this country spent an awful lot of time, effort and pain getting out from under. "Voluntary" or otherwise, what possible advantage would rejoining a re-formed United Kingdom possibly offer the Irish peple?

Our programme calls for the smashing of the United Kingdom as it currently stands, that is to say as an imperialist and sectarian state which denies the right of self-determination to the smaller nations. We stand in the tradition of Connolly and Larkin, who campaigned for workers unity in the north and south anda workers republic, and not the traditions of the bureaucratised and right wing Labour Party of today, which supports the beefing up of the EU to include an EU army (the battlegroups) and copperfasten anti-trade union judgments of the ECJ

PES activist
27-09-2010, 06:14 PM
Our programme calls for the smashing of the United Kingdom as it currently stands, that is to say as an imperialist and sectarian state which denies the right of self-determination to the smaller nations. We stand in the tradition of Connolly and Larkin, who campaigned for workers unity in the north and south anda workers republic, and not the traditions of the bureaucratised and right wing Labour Party of today, which supports the beefing up of the EU to include an EU army (the battlegroups) and copperfasten anti-trade union judgments of the ECJ

Read your history, my friend. Neither Connolly nor Larkin called for the reconstitution of the constitutional relationship between Ireland and Great Britain along "socialist" lines. Both sought to break the constitutional link between these islands, not reconstitute it. I notice also that you have not answered my questions but instead resorted to name-calling.

So let's try again, what possible advantage would rejoining a re-formed United Kingdom offer the Irish people? Why not a socialist federation with France, or perhaps just with an independent Scotland ... or maybe even with Iceland?

C. Flower
27-09-2010, 06:25 PM
Joe Higgin's micro-party has long been known to favour the re-entry of Ireland to a re-formed United Kingdom, although this time called a "socialist federation". Why is this? Why the UK? Why not a socialist federation with France, or perhaps just with an independent Scotland ... or maybe even with Iceland?

The SP comrades are clearly committed to the resurrection, albeit under a different name, of a prior relationship that the people of much of this country spent an awful lot of time, effort and pain getting out from under. "Voluntary" or otherwise, and "voluntary" is a word that brings a wry smile to the lips of those familiar with the views of the Trotskyite fringe, what possible advantage would rejoining a re-formed United Kingdom offer the Irish people?

I don't think there's much possibility that Trotsky would have agreed with this. He was for the self-determination of nations. I've taken part in a debate on this more than once. At the end of the last engagement, I was told that the issue was not a fixed position (if I understood rightly) and that the SP was open to all permutations.

People Korps
27-09-2010, 06:32 PM
I don't think there's much possibility that Trotsky would have agreed with this. He was for the self-determination of nations. I've taken part in a debate on this more than once. At the end of the last engagement, I was told that the issue was not a fixed position (if I understood rightly) and that the SP was open to all permutations.

Indeed and Trotsky would have been dubious about the re establishment of socialist states on the lines of old imperial conglomerations. The Stalin approach was socialist imperialism.

PES activist
27-09-2010, 06:32 PM
I don't think there's much possibility that Trotsky would have agreed with this. He was for the self-determination of nations. I've taken part in a debate on this more than once. At the end of the last engagement, I was told that the issue was not a fixed position (if I understood rightly) and that the SP was open to all permutations.

I was first made aware of this "exotic" bit of policy when I was in the UK Labour Party in Birmingham. A local Militant Tendency entryist, sorry paper-seller, became somewhat irate that a Paddy was challenging his analysis of the imminent collapse of capitalism, and exclaimed that, "... the bloody Irish should know their place". Pretty much explains the background to this unusual policy for me!

By the way, is "permutations" another word for "compromise"? Doesn't sound very revolutionary to me ... LOL!

People Korps
27-09-2010, 06:35 PM
I have changed the thread title to "Joe Higgins The Red John Redmond? Socialist Party and Nationalism, are they unionists?" to allow for debate rather than stating definitives

antiestablishmentarian
27-09-2010, 06:38 PM
Read your history, my friend. Neither Connolly nor Larkin called for the reconstitution of the constitutional relationship between Ireland and Great Britain along "socialist" lines. Both sought to break the constitutional link between these islands, not reconstitute it. I notice also that you have not answered my questions but instead resorted to name-calling.

So let's try again, what possible advantage would rejoining a re-formed United Kingdom offer the Irish people? Why not a socialist federation with France, or perhaps just with an independent Scotland ... or maybe even with Iceland?

Our position was formulated as a direct result of partition, which Connolly didn't have to deal with as he was dead: there exists a national consciousness among the unionist people of the north since at least the 1910's, who see themselves as a nation separate from the catholic definition that irishness has traditionally carried in these islands. It is as a compromise to try and build workers unity that we formulated that position in the 1970's. Again, as I said, our programme calls for an overthrow of the UK and its replacement with a socialist England, socialist Wales, and a socialist Scotland. We seek the end of both sectarian states on this island and their replacement with a socialist Ireland: we would prefer this socialist Ireland to be part of a federation with the other socialist states on the island of Great Britain, but the 'free and voluntary' nature of such a federation means this need not necessarily be the case. There are long historical, linguistic, cultural and more importantly class ties between the peoples of these islands, and this shared heritage can provide the basis for such a socialist federation. Also, when I talked about Labour just there I wasn't name calling, I was describing the Labour Party as it now stands: the parliamentary party opposed the ban on stag-hunting and supported the Croke Park agreement, and many Labour led councils around the country have led the charge in implementing bin taxes and other service charges, as in Limerick for example. If thats not right wing, what is?

People Korps
27-09-2010, 06:43 PM
is the Socialist Party in NI part of the one in the ROI, independet or part of the Scottish, pr English one
who leads the shadow federation if there is one?
There is some committee is there not, i have to look it up again, that coordinates between the socialist union "almost established" in all four nations? If that is so what is its composition and which country has the most members on the committee?

Jolly Red Giant
27-09-2010, 06:43 PM
I will engage in this debate if any of the above antagonists can produce one single sentence that states that the Socialist Party calls for a re-formed, re-constituted, re-constructed (or any other re- that you can find) Great Britain or United Kingdom.

I would also offer some advice to those who appear incapable (likely on purpose) of understanding the basis of the Socialist Party's position on the national question (and it applies right throughout the neo-colonial world). Go and read some basic works of Marxism and find out what happens to imperialism with the advent of socialist revolution.

People Korps
27-09-2010, 06:49 PM
Is their an appetite of the revolution? I would have thought that there should be if the people were shown the way by good orators and people doing good works based on socialist principles in the communities. I think Jolly Green should read the Digger papers (http://www.diggers.org/) and we can seee where we can change the grey of the Socialist Party to the rainbow hues of freedom from any oligarchy , including a socialist one..

antiestablishmentarian
27-09-2010, 06:50 PM
is the Socialist Party in NI part of the one in the ROI, independet or part of the Scottish, pr English one
who leads the shadow federation if there is one?
There is some committee is there not, i have to look it up again, that coordinates between the socialist union "almost established" in all four nations? If that is so what is its composition and which country has the most members on the committee?

The SP in the North is part of the all Ireland Socialist Party: the only difference being that they operate in a different state and are thus part of the Northern Region, whereas down here we're part of the Southern Region. They are represented on the all-Ireland National Committee. As for the body you refer to, that is the International Secretariat of the CWI which is composed of members from all sections of our international organisation, which has sections in over 40 countries.

People Korps
27-09-2010, 06:54 PM
So would a 40 country federation not be harder to achieve and run than 40 single socialist states that had fraternal contact and co-operation? and re operations here is a nice idea for these needy times Free Food (http://www.diggers.org/free_food_in_the_panhandle.htm)

Jolly Red Giant
27-09-2010, 06:55 PM
Is their an appetite of the revolution? I would have thought that there should be if the people were shown the way by good orators and people doing good works based on socialist principles in the communities. I think Jolly Green should read the Digger papers (http://www.diggers.org/) and we can seee where we can change the grey of the Socialist Party to the rainbow hues of freedom from any oligarchy , including a socialist one..
Now I will ask another question - what are you smoking? whatever type of whacky weed you are on, it's frying your brain.

PES activist
27-09-2010, 06:56 PM
I think there are two interesting points in your comments, Antidis, which I haven't come across in your organisation before. First, your observation that "... Connolly didn't have to deal with [partition] as he was dead:" If I didn't know any better I'd say this sounds like revisionism. However, Connolly did have to deal with the effective partition that existed on this island in his time between catholic/nationalist and protestant/unionist workers and he never recommended the reconstitution of the UK as a socialist federation, volutary or otherwise, as a solution to that division.

From my conversations with MT members in Birmingham in the 1980s I can confirm your description of how MT cardres tried to sell this policy, especially amongst the Birmingham Irish and those on the Labour Left commited to Irish unity. What you leave unsaid however is the actual reason that this position was adopted, i.e. in order to square MT recruitment and organising campaigns in NI with their campaigns South of the border.

Between the flexibility you are showing on re-interpreting Connolly and your willingness to adapt policy to court popularity, I think I might be witnessing a new maturity and coming of age of your organisation :-) Might we soon see you joining the democratic family?

As for Labour policy and actions, I am very happy to confirm that compared to the Trotskyite fringe we are indeed "right-wing"!

People Korps
27-09-2010, 06:57 PM
Now I will ask another question - what are you smoking? whatever type of whacky weed you are on, it's frying your brain.

Just because someone makes good suggestions does not automatically mean they are on drugs :) Even straights can have good ideas Man.

antiestablishmentarian
27-09-2010, 07:02 PM
So would a 40 country federation not be harder to achieve and run than 40 single socialist states that had fraternal contact and co-operation? and re operations here is a nice idea for these needy times Free Food (http://www.diggers.org/free_food_in_the_panhandle.htm)
They're in different continents: plus a federation necessarily implies loose structure and a high degree of autonomy. And a socialist 'state' would be very different from what we recognise as a state today- a high degree of decentralisation with power vested in the grassroots at the lowest possible level in workers councils is what we aim for, not a centralised, bureaucratic modern capitalist state.

People Korps
27-09-2010, 07:05 PM
They're in different continents: plus a federation necessarily implies loose structure and a high degree of autonomy. And a socialist 'state' would be very different from what we recognise as a state today- a high degree of decentralisation with power vested in the grassroots at the lowest possible level in workers councils is what we aim for, not a centralised, bureaucratic modern capitalist state.

Would food and fuel be sourced locally or nationally? Military controlled by local workers group's militias or national?
the next question is if national then what would the federation control? If it is so loose it may have no function , too regulatory it becomes the oligarchy

Jolly Red Giant
27-09-2010, 07:11 PM
Let's look at a couple of concrete quotes on this -

Lenin stated -
"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them" but acknowledged "their freedom to secede".

Lenin then went on -
Marx in 1869 demanded the separation of Ireland from England, and added: “...although after the separation there may come federation...Only by putting forward this demand did Marx really educate the English workers in the spirit of internationalism...Only in this way was Marx able, also in the sphere of the solution of national problems, to oppose the revolutionary action of the masses to verbal and often hypocritical recognition of the equality and the self-determination of nations.

From - the Socialist Revolution and the Rights of Nations to Self Determination 1915.

People Korps
27-09-2010, 07:23 PM
However practically what state was allowed to secede from the USSR?
And Marx was out of step with the republican Fenians (who in 1865 and 1866 were branded "communistic" in the Tory/Unionist press and by the Irish AG) who he did give some support to as they wished for total separation.

The senetence " the revolutionary action of the masses to verbal and often hypocritical recognition of the equality and the self-determination of nations." could do with some explanation , what revolutionary action> nationalist or socialist? and of course the idea of nation is often constructed and hypocritical. Just look at the "Irish nation" if ever theuir was delusion re race it is in Ireland especially on the eastern seaboard, in the midlands, the south coast and most of Ulster. Ulster Scots Presbyterians for example are likely the decendents of a mix of old Ulster Irish (the Scoti aka Irish who were the dominant people there from 6-7th c) and Norman (who they intermarried with) with a bit of Pict through in for good measure. One of the things people dont know about Normans with irish interests is that many were in fact half Irish in terms of gens eg Alan of Galloway.

Fraxinus
27-09-2010, 08:34 PM
However practically what state was allowed to secede from the USSR?
And Marx was out of step with the republican Fenians (who in 1865 and 1866 were branded "communistic" in the Tory/Unionist press and by the Irish AG) who he did give some support to as they wished for total separation.

The senetence " the revolutionary action of the masses to verbal and often hypocritical recognition of the equality and the self-determination of nations." could do with some explanation , what revolutionary action> nationalist or socialist? and of course the idea of nation is often constructed and hypocritical. Just look at the "Irish nation" if ever theuir was delusion re race it is in Ireland especially on the eastern seaboard, in the midlands, the south coast and most of Ulster. Ulster Scots Presbyterians for example are likely the decendents of a mix of old Ulster Irish (the Scoti aka Irish who were the dominant people there from 6-7th c) and Norman (who they intermarried with) with a bit of Pict through in for good measure. One of the things people dont know about Normans with irish interests is that many were in fact half Irish in terms of gens eg Alan of Galloway.

Where are the men of the West in all this?

Were the Lowland Scots that took part in the plantations not of mixed Saxon decent if Scots/Ulster Scots is a Germanic dialect?

C. Flower
27-09-2010, 08:55 PM
However practically what state was allowed to secede from the USSR?
And Marx was out of step with the republican Fenians (who in 1865 and 1866 were branded "communistic" in the Tory/Unionist press and by the Irish AG) who he did give some support to as they wished for total separation.
.

Marx and his daughter Jenny carried out a big campaign for the Fenian prisoners and had more time for them than they had for him.

Both Lenin and Trotsky favoured allowing Georgia self determination, but ironically it was the Georgian, Stalin, who put paid to that.

People Korps
28-09-2010, 02:11 AM
They did indeed but communism was far from the Fenians fertile minds.

unspecific
25-03-2011, 01:40 AM
Why do people tr*ll the Socialist Party like this? I say this on the assumption they understand the global nature of the class system and the bourgeois essence of nationalism. This unionism stuff is the most blatant campaign of disinformation I've come across in the whitenoise-level sectarian wars between Trots.

With regards Joe Higgins, he is an activist I have much respect for. Like it or not he is a pioneer. He is an activist who gets elected councillor, TD and MEP providing public platforms for fellow activists/revolutionary trade unionists. Appears at marches and on media all over the world calling for an end to capitalism, for people to reclaim the unions and to organize. Supports every campaign and community that needs it. Goes to prison fighting for the working class. Personally conducts international investigations on behalf of workers.

I get that old school image of the pre-pubescent rebel from these people; that trying to organize the proletariat comes second to romanticism, Che Guevara t-shirts, listening to the Sex Pistols and wearing keffiyahs.

This reeks of organised trolling for tha lulz, at best.

(I consider myself a lefty who possibly identifies best with something between the ISN and WSM)

TotalMayhem
25-03-2011, 02:53 AM
With regards Joe Higgins, he is an activist I have much respect for.

Not that I share his convictions but Joe Higgins certainly deserves respect for what he has achieved.

He's not the groomed product of a political apparatus like most other TDs, many of whom abuse their office to enrich themselves and their families shamelessly (and don't have a "problem" with it).

Sidewinder
25-03-2011, 10:36 AM
Why do people tr*ll the Socialist Party like this?

It's not just the SP - Labour (and quite rightly too) get a lot of stick and not least from me for being a pack of self-loathing grovellers enamoured with raving revisionist partitionism and riddled with lackey West British tendencies.

It's a general problem on the Irish Left and no amount of vague hand-flapping and protestations about the "international brotherhood of the proletariat" can dislodge the very real whiff that many on the Irish left simply don't want the burden and hassle of Irish Independence and would prefer to have adults overseas make all the hard decisions while they navel-gaze and nitpick over how the spoils are divided.

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 10:46 AM
Why do people tr*ll the Socialist Party like this? I say this on the assumption they understand the global nature of the class system and the bourgeois essence of nationalism. This unionism stuff is the most blatant campaign of disinformation I've come across in the whitenoise-level sectarian wars between Trots.

With regards Joe Higgins, he is an activist I have much respect for. Like it or not he is a pioneer. He is an activist who gets elected councillor, TD and MEP providing public platforms for fellow activists/revolutionary trade unionists. Appears at marches and on media all over the world calling for an end to capitalism, for people to reclaim the unions and to organize. Supports every campaign and community that needs it. Goes to prison fighting for the working class. Personally conducts international investigations on behalf of workers.

I get that old school image of the pre-pubescent rebel from these people; that trying to organize the proletariat comes second to romanticism, Che Guevara t-shirts, listening to the Sex Pistols and wearing keffiyahs.

This reeks of organised trolling for tha lulz, at best.

(I consider myself a lefty who possibly identifies best with something between the ISN and WSM)

Welcome unspecific :)

The discussions on this site on the SP's position on relations with Britain involve people from a wide variety of political viewpoints, right, left and centre, trotskyist, Stalinist, Fianna Failish, right libertarian etc. Whatever the motives in starting the thread, the issue is treated seriously by most on the thread.

No matter how amusing your imagined version of "these people" (whoever you are talking about) it can't possibly describe the wide variety of people who have taken issue with the SP position, using serious arguments. Perhaps you would like to say why you think they are wrong with reference to the substance of what is said rather than their assumed dress codes, which I really much doubt include any of the items you mention ?

antiestablishmentarian
25-03-2011, 11:10 AM
It's not just the SP - Labour (and quite rightly too) get a lot of stick and not least from me for being a pack of self-loathing grovellers enamoured with raving revisionist partitionism and riddled with lackey West British tendencies.

It's a general problem on the Irish Left and no amount of vague hand-flapping and protestations about the "international brotherhood of the proletariat" can dislodge the very real whiff that many on the Irish left simply don't want the burden and hassle of Irish Independence and would prefer to have adults overseas make all the hard decisions while they navel-gaze and nitpick over how the spoils are divided.

The thing is Sidey, the SPs' idea of a federation logically means that people on this island would be running their affairs themselves, not being dictated to by outside forces. The very idea of a federation of England, Wales Scotland and Ireland (voluntary of course) would mean the end of the UK.

Sidewinder
25-03-2011, 11:28 AM
The thing is Sidey, the SPs' idea of a federation logically means that people on this island would be running their affairs themselves, not being dictated to by outside forces. The very idea of a federation of England, Wales Scotland and Ireland (voluntary of course) would mean the end of the UK.

G'way a that, that's just nonsense over here in the really real world.

It's the same problem as the EU, you can hardly have an "equal partnership" when 3 of the parties have about 14m people combined and the fourth party has what, 51m+.

The big gorilla - and this is a big gorilla indeed, over three times larger than the other three combined! - and its politicians will always end up dominating in that scenario, and believing otherwise is just the sweetie mice talking. Nah, all this "consensual federation" stuff is for the birds, it's really astonishingly naive and infantile if you ask me.

Either that or (and I can't shake the notion) the original designers of this melarky were quite deliberately seeking a return to the Union but dressing it up in a nice shiny flowery roundabout way in order to mendaciously disguise their real intentions and roadmap. Kindof like the EU has gone about their real agenda and roadmap in a convoluted roundabout way in order to try and hide the real endgame desired result.

Sidey is not fooled by such carry-on ;)

Kildare North
25-03-2011, 11:29 AM
Although not a member of the SP, I think this "issue" is grossly misrepresented by republican and other left sections, on purpose or not. The idea of a federacy with England , Scottland and Wales (Not Britain or the UK) is that its probably the smallest sized collective in which socialism can operate propperly. Those three states being our current biggest trading partners and closest neighbours its only logical to suggest such an alliance. (I'm also sure they would not object to a federation with any other socialist community regardless of CURRENT STATE be it France, Germany, Portugal etc. Its a question of logistics.)

The other thing I notice is the misunderstanding of a "socialist state". Its not the same as replacing the current states with socialist governments and having Taoiseach Joe fly the union jack. Under the conditions required for a socialist federation to be created (regardless of with whom) states would be totally dissolved. "England" as an entity would not exist. The people in Newcastle would have as much power as the people in Cork, i.e Self Determination.London would be no more powerful than Belfast, Liverpool, Dublin or Galway. London could not rule anything even if it wanted to due to Council level direct democracy. I don't know if people who object to this are unaware of the ideas of a functioning socialist system and internationalism or they purposely try to skew it. It seems to be an inability to get beyond the idea of nation states. Either way it is very frustrating.

unspecific
25-03-2011, 02:08 PM
No matter how amusing your imagined version of "these people" (whoever you are talking about) it can't possibly describe the wide variety of people who have taken issue with the SP position, using serious arguments. Perhaps you would like to say why you think they are wrong with reference to the substance of what is said rather than their assumed dress codes, which I really much doubt include any of the items you mention ?

Apologies. I'm trying to become a better poster, honest I am. :o




the very real whiff that many on the Irish left simply don't want the burden and hassle of Irish Independence and would prefer to have adults overseas make all the hard decisions while they navel-gaze and nitpick over how the spoils are divided.


A requisite of being a Marxist is that you aren't happy with diktats from the capitalist tier of society(regardless of geography) and an understanding that it isn't optimal for the population at large to be left out of society's decision-making processes. The whole idea is to smash the ruling class, the inherently global ruling class. And to transfer that sovereignty back into the hands of the masses.

What you are suggesting goes completely against what a Marxist party came into being for. It makes no sense that they would seek to disenfranchise people when, in theory, they exist as an entity to extend democracy to all spheres of life.

What do you imagine "independence" to be?

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 02:18 PM
Although not a member of the SP, I think this "issue" is grossly misrepresented by republican and other left sections, on purpose or not. The idea of a federacy with England , Scottland and Wales (Not Britain or the UK) is that its probably the smallest sized collective in which socialism can operate propperly. Those three states being our current biggest trading partners and closest neighbours its only logical to suggest such an alliance. (I'm also sure they would not object to a federation with any other socialist community regardless of CURRENT STATE be it France, Germany, Portugal etc. Its a question of logistics.)

The other thing I notice is the misunderstanding of a "socialist state". Its not the same as replacing the current states with socialist governments and having Taoiseach Joe fly the union jack. Under the conditions required for a socialist federation to be created (regardless of with whom) states would be totally dissolved. "England" as an entity would not exist. The people in Newcastle would have as much power as the people in Cork, i.e Self Determination.London would be no more powerful than Belfast, Liverpool, Dublin or Galway. London could not rule anything even if it wanted to due to Council level direct democracy. I don't know if people who object to this are unaware of the ideas of a functioning socialist system and internationalism or they purposely try to skew it. It seems to be an inability to get beyond the idea of nation states. Either way it is very frustrating.

Apart from the means of production being in the ownership and control of the working class, there isn't that much known about how a socialist state involving Ireland would be organised.

However, any democracy that relies on personal votes must to some extent be influenced by the location of the majority of voters. Voters don't only vote on local issues but also on strategic national and international issues.

Is an all-island government for Ireland part of the SP concept ?

Personally, I don't see any call at this stage to have any detailed prescription for the type of international governance with which a future socialist Ireland would be part. It is far too uncertain how things will pan out beyond looking at the national question and the EU, which are already political issues. The one thing that seems certain is that the EU, the present international entity, is under enormous strain and there will be changes.

Do you think the EU should be reformed or disbanded ? If the latter, how should it be replaced ? And how would Ireland fit into that ?

Sam Lord
25-03-2011, 02:22 PM
It is a ludicrous position that can only possibly be explained by a deep seated nostalgia for days long gone.

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 02:22 PM
Apologies. I'm trying to become a better poster, honest I am. :o


Appreciated :) Everyone is allowed a couple of rants on arrival....;)

unspecific
25-03-2011, 02:53 PM
Personally, I don't see any call at this stage to have any detailed prescription for the type of international governance with which a future socialist Ireland would be part.

I think thats the most important point at this stage and shouldn't affect how socialists work.

There are innumerable models on how to protect minorities. Just off the top of my head there are cantonal systems, referendum locks, subsidiarity principle, well defined mandates, vote-weighting. I'd like to know more about how continental trade unions are run. Matters for another day anywho.

Personally, though at the time of formulation it was understandable to seek federation with nearest neighbours, in this era of the global village and the interweb the scope for federations should be grander if anything.

I fret to invoke Mao here but even as activist movements, solidarity action should be spreading to the workshops of the world like India, China.

Buddha
25-03-2011, 03:39 PM
I think that the right, the far right and the fascists have little to fear as long as the left, the far left, and the outside the margins left keep fighting with each other.

Divide and Rule. And the Right and the Rich have it off to a tee.

What does it matter who said what where and when. What matters is we unite, as comrades, work hard together, as comrades, not for our own political aspirations but for the good of the people.

Sam Lord
25-03-2011, 03:50 PM
I think the Federation should include France. Like ... what is wrong with France? Cheap wine, beautiful countryside, and Cactus seems to like their poetry. France should definitely be included.

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 04:04 PM
I think the Federation should include France. Like ... what is wrong with France? Cheap wine, beautiful countryside, and Cactus seems to like their poetry. France should definitely be included.

Portugal would seem like an obvious partner, just at the moment.

Kildare North
25-03-2011, 04:18 PM
Portugal would seem like an obvious partner, just at the moment.

Very true, connections are being made with the united left in the other countries under threat from IMF/EU austerity, Portugal, Italy and Greece have definatly been made contact with in hopes of Europe wide action.

Of course France should be included in a federation, it is an internationalist concept, it excludes no current state. All this mention of "socialist states" is a bit of an oxymoron, as the Marxist tradition of a socialist society would be defined by its lack of "state" structure.

I totally agree that this sort of arguement is ridiculous and part of the reason I am not part of any specific left faction. Another reason this debate is fairly ridiculous is because your debating the semantics of the very end of a process that may take generations at a time when we are being attacked from all sides by the capitalist elite. The retardation of this frame of mind is mind boggling. Thankfully with the advent of the ULA, non party Marxists are springing from the woodwork and hopefully this disease of left sectarianism will be cured... bit of a tangent there.

(sorry for not responding to the other intresting questions asked there, I'l try respond with my understanding later)

PS. Congrats on forming a forum where this can be discussed without turning into a senior infants name calling match!

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 04:28 PM
Very true, connections are being made with the united left in the other countries under threat from IMF/EU austerity, Portugal, Italy and Greece have definatly been made contact with in hopes of Europe wide action.

Of course France should be included in a federation, it is an internationalist concept, it excludes no current state. All this mention of "socialist states" is a bit of an oxymoron, as the Marxist tradition of a socialist society would be defined by its lack of "state" structure.

I totally agree that this sort of arguement is ridiculous and part of the reason I am not part of any specific left faction. Another reason this debate is fairly ridiculous is because your debating the semantics of the very end of a process that may take generations at a time when we are being attacked from all sides by the capitalist elite. The retardation of this frame of mind is mind boggling. Thankfully with the advent of the ULA, non party Marxists are springing from the woodwork and hopefully this disease of left sectarianism will be cured... bit of a tangent there.

(sorry for not responding to the other intresting questions asked there, I'l try respond with my understanding later)

PS. Congrats on forming a forum where this can be discussed without turning into a senior infants name calling match!

Thanks for that. I look forward to plenty of fruitful discussions.

I agree with you that the practical job of building a trans Europe (and wider) alliance is far more relevant - with the purpose of combatting "austerity" and campaigning for public control of the main infrastructural, energy and manufacturing functions and of course ensuring the population is properly fed - not something that can be taken for granted any more. There was a demonstration last September that was called to bring people out all over Europe on the same day - ICTU decided not to demonstrate but to have a "photo opportunity" with appropriately yellow balloons. If we leave it the current office holders, it won't happen.

Buddha - I agree about the need for a united front. At the same time, I think its healthy for issues of programme and policy need to be thrashed out and made very clear.

Sam Lord
25-03-2011, 04:29 PM
Of course France should be included in a federation ...

So why aren't they? That's what I want to know.

Kildare North
25-03-2011, 04:51 PM
So why aren't they? That's what I want to know.

Well seeing as the goal is international global socialism i thought that was implied. I think, must reiterate that im not representitive of the SP, that the idea of a federation of the western atlantic isles is just the most logical first step on a long process, not the last. If they were to include France in the list then by logic they would have to list every country in europe/the world or else some other person would come a long and dig up a semantical argument until there was no countries left to list.

I dont think its set in stone, should a time arise where a federation with France would be most logical first step Im sure they would advocate that. It is not based on anything historical or romantic, pure logic. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if the programme was updated in the near future to advocate much closer cooperation with the other austerity riddled states like Portugal etc. Unfortunatly none of them are an industrial hub like Germany or England (or even your beloved France ;)) who have the infrastructure required for the running of such a community.

Sam Lord
25-03-2011, 05:02 PM
I think, must reiterate that im not representitive of the SP, that the idea of a federation of the western atlantic isles is just the most logical first step on a long process, not the last.

I don't understand why they are not included in the first step. They are connected to England by the Channel tunnel, they have a lot of industry and a great working class history. I think it is big mistake to exclude them in the first step. Personally, I'd rather have them than Scotland which is kinda OK but then you have those Rangers supporters.

Is it because they speak French? Is that why they are being blanked?

C. Flower
25-03-2011, 05:15 PM
I'm not expecting an answer to this from any non-P member, but - question.

In the event of revolution in the UK, and a workers' state, I would presume that one of the first things to be done would be to withdraw the British army and secret police (presumably dissolved in any case) from Ireland and hand over all Irish intelligence files and any secret agreements with Irish politicians to wikileaks and the Irish media .... ?

Am I wrong to presume that ?

unspecific
27-03-2011, 02:34 AM
I'd imagine the day the UK tumbles is only a couple of days before we do. The Irish capitalist system would meltdown over night. As would many, many capitalists states really.

antiestablishmentarian
27-03-2011, 01:57 PM
I'm not expecting an answer to this from any non-P member, but - question.

In the event of revolution in the UK, and a workers' state, I would presume that one of the first things to be done would be to withdraw the British army and secret police (presumably dissolved in any case) from Ireland and hand over all Irish intelligence files and any secret agreements with Irish politicians to wikileaks and the Irish media .... ?

Am I wrong to presume that ?

I imagine that if there was a revolutionary situation in the UK (on the mainland) the army would be withdrawn from the North asap to prop up the régime on the mainland. And as unspecific said, the capitalist state here would probably tumble within a couple of days of a successful revolution in the UK.