PDA

View Full Version : SP oppose Queen's visit but won't protest



antiestablishmentarian
05-05-2011, 11:36 PM
http://socialistparty.net/comment/643-queen-elizabeth-and-barrack-obama-no-welcome-for-war-leaders

Interesting justification for their position. I don't support the dissidents, but while I broadly agree with the conclusion of the article on the need to build the worker's movement, I can't help but think pigeonholing the dissident groups ( I define those groups who oppose the GFA, which has been accepted by the largest and best supported self-defined republican parties, SF & FF) as sectarians is inaccurate. After all, Kerr was a member of the Catholic community and was targetted as a member of the security forces not because of his religious identity.

Cáthasaigh
05-05-2011, 11:39 PM
It's a bit like the employee who grumbles about the boss but won't confront them incase their salary is jeopardised. In fact it's exactly like that.

5intheface
05-05-2011, 11:41 PM
Frankly it sounds like cowardice masked by a thin veneer of principle.

Fraxinus
05-05-2011, 11:47 PM
It's amazing there's no protests for either of the two visits. I'm sure the SP did for Bush, could be wrong.

Holly
05-05-2011, 11:59 PM
Symbolically, this visit solidifies the border for some time to come.

Fraxinus
06-05-2011, 12:02 AM
Symbolically, this visit solidifies the border for some time to come.

The GFA already did that. The visit just highlights the sniveling servile attitude that is all too present in "modern" Ireland.

5intheface
06-05-2011, 12:03 AM
The GFA already did that. The visit just highlights the sniveling servile attitude that is all too present in "modern" Ireland.

I hear that!

Cáthasaigh
06-05-2011, 12:05 AM
It's amazing there's no protests for either of the two visits. I'm sure the SP did for Bush, could be wrong.

Gerry Adams described those who protested Bush's visit to the north as 'immature'.

Fraxinus
06-05-2011, 12:13 AM
I hear that!

Interesting to see who will become the jackeens of the 21st century:)

Fraxinus
06-05-2011, 12:20 AM
Gerry Adams described those who protested Bush's visit to the north as 'immature'.

No doubt there is something on record from him denouncing Bush as well, probably whispering it to Ógra members....I blame the beard...he can end up talking from every side of his mouth with it.

Kev Bar
06-05-2011, 12:39 AM
So many smart minds all fired up by an outdated soap.


This is not London during the wedding.

A total non response is the most radical response given the hand history has dealt us.

Cáthasaigh
06-05-2011, 12:43 AM
So many smart minds all fired up by an outdated soap.

Did you drop it?

Kev Bar
06-05-2011, 12:54 AM
Did you drop it?

Slippery - yet hair free.

Wasn't it Imperial Leather - Royalty like Tory loves a whipping - soap that did 'the peasants are revolting' ad some three decades ago?

You ain't gonna get me in a 30 yr old cliche!

Kev Bar
06-05-2011, 12:56 AM
Frankly it sounds like cowardice masked by a thin veneer of principle.

I hope that ends at the "green" geezers and you ain't calling me yellow.

Cáthasaigh
06-05-2011, 01:17 AM
Slippery - yet hair free.

Wasn't it Imperial Leather - Royalty like Tory loves a whipping - soap that did 'the peasants are revolting' ad some three decades ago?

You ain't gonna get me in a 30 yr old cliche!

And there was me thinking it was Dick's favourite; 'Irish Spring'.

Sam Lord
06-05-2011, 01:45 AM
It has always been the line of British imperialism that the conflict in the north was a sectarian one. It's very sad to see people who claim to be against the status quo parroting it.

Griska
06-05-2011, 01:51 AM
It has always been the line of British imperialism that the conflict in the north was a sectarian one. It's very sad to see people who claim to be against the status quo parroting it.

It's a little pathetic for the SP to condemn the visits and immediately claim their reasons for doing so are more valid than others.

C. Flower
06-05-2011, 02:09 AM
How can anyone make sense of this ?


British Imperialism’s historic role in Ireland of actively instilling and propagating sectarian division and partitioning the country for their own economic and military ends was to blame for the creation of two sectarian states on this island. The discrimination suffered by Catholics in Northern Ireland during Unionist rule was as a direct result of the role played by successive British administrations.

....

So, sectarianism has been created by British Imperialism, but it is, they say, sectarian to demonstrate against British Imperialism. This is Alice in Wonderland territory.

And then we have a little felon-setting thrown in....


Dissident republicans will be on the streets protesting against Queen Elizabeth’s visit. The Socialist Party will not be supporting their protests which are inherently sectarian. The murder of PSNI officer Ronan Kerr and the recent spate of attempted bombings in Northern Ireland are a warning that there are still backward sectarian forces attempting to drag us back to the horror of the “Troubles”.

So, anyone who demonstrates is associated by the SP with that death.


The strategy of the dissidents is based on carrying out attacks which will whip up sectarian division and bring down state repression on working class Catholic communities. This reactionary strategy should be opposed by all working class people. The national divisions on this island will not be resolved through the failed strategy of the armed struggle but by building a mass movement for socialism based on working class unity.

The SP must know that many anti-Imperialists, Republicans and anti-monarchists who are against the visit are not in favour of an armed campaign.

QE2 of course has no such qualms about the use of violence. Her son and grandsons have all been serving officers in the British army (one of them in Afghanistan) and she is the head of the armed forces. In the "Royal Wedding" they all paraded in their dress uniforms and whatisface was married in the uniform of the Irish Guards.

None of this is accidental, and it's profoundly reactionary, timed to swamp the media, to anaesthetise minds, to promote monarchy and militarism whilst a savage austerity programme is put through in across Britain and Ireland.

Holly
06-05-2011, 08:36 AM
The most dignified way for Irish people to show our disapproval of the politicians' invitation to the symbol of unionism visiting our country is to treat it with utter disregard.

Cáthasaigh
06-05-2011, 09:17 AM
The most dignified way for Irish people to show our disapproval of the politicians' invitation to the symbol of unionism visiting our country is to treat it with utter disregard.

Ah yes, 'croppies lie down'. Think I've heard that somewhere before.

bolshevik
06-05-2011, 11:39 AM
I guess there won't be many SPers at this meeting in Cork - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/99660

truth.ie
06-05-2011, 11:56 PM
What a pathetic position.
Imagine someone not protesting against the Vietnam War in the 60s for fear of being linked to Communist agitators.
Total cowardice.

Apjp
07-05-2011, 12:15 AM
I agree. I see now why anti-e left them. Disappointed in Joe in particular who is in my view the real pillar of Irish socialism for allowing this tripe as party leader. They fudge on many issues, particularly the complexities avoided through avoiding practical marxist alternatives through costed marxist proposals before every budget. total reactionaries and agitators unfortunately.

C. Flower
07-05-2011, 12:18 AM
Do the SP have Councillors on Dublin City Council ?

Apjp
07-05-2011, 12:19 AM
Do the SP have Councillors on Dublin City Council ?

Not in any great numbers. PBP are huge in comparison in the city centre areas. I cant think of one SP one in the city centre.

scrawledincrayon
07-05-2011, 08:55 PM
This is a hilarious thread.

The Socialist Party opposes the British Queen's visit. A sensible position. It won't be joining the protests, which are organised by atavistic nationalist fools with the intention of gaining publicity for their deluded dissident grouplets. Again a sensible position.

There is no reason for socialists to bulk up the protests of nationalist splinter groups and absolutely no reason to march behind their banners.

C. Flower
07-05-2011, 09:01 PM
This is a hilarious thread.

The Socialist Party opposes the British Queen's visit. A sensible position. It won't be joining the protests, which are organised by atavistic nationalist fools with the intention of gaining publicity for their deluded dissident grouplets. Again a sensible position.

There is no reason for socialists to bulk up the protests of nationalist splinter groups and absolutely no reason to march behind their banners.

So, why don't they march behind their own banners ?

Fraxinus
07-05-2011, 09:03 PM
This is a hilarious thread.

The Socialist Party opposes the British Queen's visit. A sensible position. It won't be joining the protests, which are organised by atavistic nationalist fools with the intention of gaining publicity for their deluded dissident grouplets. Again a sensible position.

There is no reason for socialists to bulk up the protests of nationalist splinter groups and absolutely no reason to march behind their banners.

You see no reason to protest against imperialism?

Sam Lord
07-05-2011, 09:17 PM
So, why don't they march behind their own banners ?

:D:D

truth.ie
07-05-2011, 09:22 PM
This is a hilarious thread.

The Socialist Party opposes the British Queen's visit. A sensible position. It won't be joining the protests, which are organised by atavistic nationalist fools with the intention of gaining publicity for their deluded dissident grouplets. Again a sensible position.

There is no reason for socialists to bulk up the protests of nationalist splinter groups and absolutely no reason to march behind their banners.
Jesus, they protest at the drop of a hat normally. Go nibble your carrot. you'll not be missed.

scrawledincrayon
07-05-2011, 09:32 PM
Ah, just look at all the hurt feelings because the Socialist Party don't want to play with you.

The small protests against the British Queen's visit are all heavily branded dissident republican protests. There is no reason to help those groups to gain publicity, which is all that attending their protests would achieve. The sooner the dissidents crawl back under their rock the better.

Sidewinder
07-05-2011, 11:02 PM
The small protests against the British Queen's visit are all heavily branded dissident republican protests. There is no reason to help those groups to gain publicity, which is all that attending their protests would achieve. The sooner the dissidents crawl back under their rock the better.

Once upon a time this sort of nonsense was called "felon-setting".

Griska
07-05-2011, 11:05 PM
Once upon a time this sort of nonsense was called "felon-setting".

And even today, you have fallen for what is called "taking the bait" :)

Sidewinder
07-05-2011, 11:10 PM
And even today, you have fallen for what is called "taking the bait" :)

How? It's nonsense, the SP position is nonsense, scrawledincrayon's posts are nonsense.

How is simply pointing out that something is nonsense - and mendacious nonsense at that - "taking the bait"?

It's hardly a surprise. The Left in Ireland has always, well since at least the early 1960s, been home to a rather large number of rabidly determined cyptounionists hiding behind the flag of pseudo-"internationalism" to disguise their true agenda.

C. Flower
07-05-2011, 11:13 PM
If national liberation / anti imperialism is atavistic and old hat, what, I wonder is the monarchy ?

Forward looking ?

antiestablishmentarian
07-05-2011, 11:18 PM
Ah, just look at all the hurt feelings because the Socialist Party don't want to play with you.

The small protests against the British Queen's visit are all heavily branded dissident republican protests. There is no reason to help those groups to gain publicity, which is all that attending their protests would achieve. The sooner the dissidents crawl back under their rock the better.

The dissidents campaign is not going to advance the position of the working class in the North by any means, but that's not to say that the Queen's visit couldn't be protested against- it could be done under the SP's banner, and the record of the SP in opposing sectarian violence could be used to deflect criticism. Just because the SP is working to unite protestant and catholic workers in the North doesn't mean they should avoid taking a concrete position on this question.

Griska
07-05-2011, 11:21 PM
How? It's nonsense, the SP position is nonsense, scrawledincrayon's posts are nonsense.

How is simply pointing out that something is nonsense - and mendacious nonsense at that - "taking the bait"?

It's hardly a surprise. The Left in Ireland has always, well since at least the early 1960s, been home to a rather large number of rabidly determined cyptounionists hiding behind the flag of pseudo-"internationalism" to disguise their true agenda.

I believe the post in question was something of landmine. Best left untouched.

In my experience, some people on the left have been so horrendously P.C. that they would do anything to avoid addressing the inherent nastiness in unionism.
Distancing themselves from the republican movement was so important that it was worth glossing over realities.

I believe it's akin to someone afraid to point out a flaw in a black person for fear of being labelled racist.

C. Flower
07-05-2011, 11:22 PM
Of course, "Protestants" in England were arrested for demonstrating against the Royal Wedding. But we're too nice for that kind of thing.

C. Flower
07-05-2011, 11:26 PM
I believe the post in question was something of landmine. Best left untouched.

In my experience, some people on the left have been so horrendously P.C. that they would do anything to avoid addressing the inherent nastiness in unionism.
Distancing themselves from the republican movement was so important that it was worth glossing over realities.

I believe it's akin to someone afraid to point out a flaw in a black person for fear of being labelled racist.

Lumping unionism and the entire protestant working class together as though they are one and the same thing would seem to be wilfully obtuse, but it does seem to happen.
Unionism is a very reactionary form of politics. Just look at their record in Westminster. I find it bizarre that some political groups seem to think that being nice to Unionists
is a means of opposing sectarianism. Their whole reason for being is to be sectarian.

Griska
08-05-2011, 12:50 AM
Lumping unionism and the entire protestant working class together as though they are one and the same thing would seem to be wilfully obtuse, but it does seem to happen.
Unionism is a very reactionary form of politics. Just look at their record in Westminster. I find it bizarre that some political groups seem to think that being nice to Unionists
is a means of opposing sectarianism. Their whole reason for being is to be sectarian.

I really think it's also political snobbery.
There is a sense among some on the left, going back to the Provos, that republicanism is uncouth and that it's somehow more worldly to be acceptant of unionism.

scrawledincrayon
09-05-2011, 11:32 AM
Just because the SP is working to unite protestant and catholic workers in the North doesn't mean they should avoid taking a concrete position on this question.

The Socialist Party has a concrete position on the question: It is opposed to British Queen's visit.

It also has a position on dissident republicans: They are atavistic nationalists intent on stirring up further sectarian division and the Socialist Party has no interest in helping to build their protests.

There's no fudge, no confusion, no avoiding the issue.

It's extremely straightforward in fact. The only confusion is on the part of a few bewildered left republicans on the internet who keep affecting to be "shocked" when they discover over and over again that the Socialist Party is not a nationalist grouping. Of course, most of them aren't "shocked" at all, they are merely engaged in furthering the pretence that republicanism is the "real" revolutionary tradition in Ireland.

The Socialist Party also has a very clear position on unionism, by the way, which is that it's a backward, reactionary, political movement. There's no softness in the Socialist Party's analysis of unionism, that's just another of the slanders peddled by left nationalist buffoons, something stemming from their manichean world view, where anyone critical of republicanism is assumed to be a closet unionist.

Ordinarily, I'd be a little more polite than I've been in this thread, but after seeing the same dreary twaddle from internet left nationalists for the hundredth time, I have no more patience with them.

Sam Lord
09-05-2011, 12:05 PM
The Socialist Party has a concrete position on the question ...


It is a rubbish position actually. One of craven capitulation to imperialism.



It also has a position on dissident republicans: They are atavistic nationalists intent on stirring up further sectarian division and the Socialist Party has no interest in helping to build their protests.


Most of the protests seem to be organised By Éirígí. Is it really the "Socialist" Party position that Éirígí are "atavistic nationalists intent on stirring up further sectarian division"?



There's no fudge, no confusion, no avoiding the issue.


As has already been pointed out to you if the "Socialist" Party had a problem protesting alongside Republicans then all you had to do was organise your own protests. But in fact you are avoiding the issue with a really lame excuse.



It's extremely straightforward in fact. The only confusion is on the part of a few bewildered left republicans on the internet who keep affecting to be "shocked" when they discover over and over again that the Socialist Party is not a nationalist grouping. Of course, most of them aren't "shocked" at all, they are merely engaged in furthering the pretence that republicanism is the "real" revolutionary tradition in Ireland.


There is no confusion at all. No one claimed that the "Socialist" Party was nationalist. You would pretend to be anti-imperialist, however, so it was necessary to point out that you are nothing but little lackeys of imperialism.

So republicanism is not a revolutionary tradition in Ireland but trotskyism is.:rolleyes: My God! Give someone a Dail seat or two and they really lose the run of themselves. They become the "real" revolutionaries in the country.




The Socialist Party also has a very clear position on unionism ..


it's a rubbish position similar to your one on Elizabeth Windsor. You mutter softly a few token words of opposition out of the side of the mouth and then scream loudly at anyone who might "offend" unionists that in doing so they are being sectarian. It is actually a position of pandering to loyalism which is entirely in line with your general approach of pandering to imperialism.




Ordinarily, I'd be a little more polite than I've been in this thread, but after seeing the same dreary twaddle from internet left nationalists for the hundredth time, I have no more patience with them.

Yawn

scrawledincrayon
09-05-2011, 01:02 PM
Sam, you should really consider the merits of the cut and paste function. It would save you typing out the same drivel over and over, and as there's no real purpose to reading your posts, I doubt if anyone would notice and complain. At the very least you could set up some short cuts for the idiot buzzwords you are so fond of, "lackeys of imperialism" and the like.

The Socialist Party is not avoiding the issue. It does not think that the issue is of great significance, and it is not. Most people do not care about the British head of state coming to this island for a visit. A few repugnant West Britons in the media will cream their collective shorts. A few nationalist cretins will jump up and down howling, trying to use the issue to out-nationalist the Provos and build support for their pathetic dead-end sects.

The Socialist Party has published articles criticising the visit and it has raised the issue in the Dail, which is about all the issue is worth. If there were genuine protests which were not simply recruitment exercises for dissident sects then the Socialist Party would consider attending them, but it is not going to shore up those little nationalist outfit's efforts and it is not going to waste its own very limited resources in building a protest of its own. It has rather more strategically useful things to do with those limited resources - including building the ULA, creating a trade union activists network, etc.

And yes, Eirigi are left nationalists and their growth strategy is in large part premised on being angrier Catholic sectarians than the Provisionals in working class parts of the North. They have nothing to offer and have nothing of interest to say.

C. Flower
09-05-2011, 01:21 PM
Sam, you should really consider the merits of the cut and paste function. It would save you typing out the same drivel over and over, and as there's no real purpose to reading your posts, I doubt if anyone would notice and complain. At the very least you could set up some short cuts for the idiot buzzwords you are so fond of, "lackeys of imperialism" and the like.

The Socialist Party is not avoiding the issue. It does not think that the issue is of great significance, and it is not. Most people do not care about the British head of state coming to this island for a visit. A few repugnant West Britons in the media will cream their collective shorts. A few nationalist cretins will jump up and down howling, trying to use the issue to out-nationalist the Provos and build support for their pathetic dead-end sects.

The Socialist Party has published articles criticising the visit and it has raised the issue in the Dail, which is about all the issue is worth. If there were genuine protests which were not simply recruitment exercises for dissident sects then the Socialist Party would consider attending them, but it is not going to shore up those little nationalist outfit's efforts and it is not going to waste its own very limited resources in building a protest of its own. It has rather more strategically useful things to do with those limited resources - including building the ULA, creating a trade union activists network, etc.

And yes, Eirigi are left nationalists and their growth strategy is in large part premised on being angrier Catholic sectarians than the Provisionals in working class parts of the North. They have nothing to offer and have nothing of interest to say.

Eirigi's membership and support from what I can see comes largely from the working class, and eirigi has adopted a programme which is quite plainly socialist, and in the Connolly tradition. I think that this membership, and this tradition, should be engaged with robustly by Marxists but not slandered, insulted and ridiculed. The sectarian attitude seems to come from yourself in this regard. I am unsure if it is representative of the Socialist Party, as I have seen Eirigi and Joe Higgins share a platform, apparently amicably.

They have clearly opposed any military campaign at this stage and nobody claims that they have a military wing, but it seems that you are the lone voice that disputes this as you have associated them by implication with the killing of a PSNI officer.

Sam Lord
09-05-2011, 01:22 PM
Every sentence you write tells me that In three years time you will be indistinguishable from the Labour Party. In fact, it's hard to see any real difference at the moment.

Keep raising your issues in the Dail ....:D


Sam, you should really consider the merits of the cut and paste function. It would save you typing out the same drivel over and over, and as there's no real purpose to reading your posts, I doubt if anyone would notice and complain. At the very least you could set up some short cuts for the idiot buzzwords you are so fond of, "lackeys of imperialism" and the like.

The Socialist Party is not avoiding the issue. It does not think that the issue is of great significance, and it is not. Most people do not care about the British head of state coming to this island for a visit. A few repugnant West Britons in the media will cream their collective shorts. A few nationalist cretins will jump up and down howling, trying to use the issue to out-nationalist the Provos and build support for their pathetic dead-end sects.

The Socialist Party has published articles criticising the visit and it has raised the issue in the Dail, which is about all the issue is worth. If there were genuine protests which were not simply recruitment exercises for dissident sects then the Socialist Party would consider attending them, but it is not going to shore up those little nationalist outfit's efforts and it is not going to waste its own very limited resources in building a protest of its own. It has rather more strategically useful things to do with those limited resources - including building the ULA, creating a trade union activists network, etc.

And yes, Eirigi are left nationalists and their growth strategy is in large part premised on being angrier Catholic sectarians than the Provisionals in working class parts of the North. They have nothing to offer and have nothing of interest to say.

scrawledincrayon
09-05-2011, 01:55 PM
Eirigi's membership and support from what I can see comes largely from the working class, and eirigi has adopted a programme which is quite plainly socialist, and in the Connolly tradition. I think that this membership, and this tradition, should be engaged with robustly by Marxists but not slandered, insulted and ridiculed.

Most of Fianna Fail's membership and support has come from the working class over the years, which doesn't make the politics of Fianna Fail any less repugnant. Eirigi's verbal nods towards socialism are of a piece with those made by many other dead end nationalist grouplets over the years.

As for their membership, if they ever become a significant factor then it would be appropriate to spend some time and energy winning over their supporters. That would not entail pretending to have things in common, to be part of the same movement or to have any time for the politics of their organisation. It would entail taking a hard line against the dead end of left nationalism. At the moment however, Eirigi are a small left nationalist sect and there is little less purposeful than spending time trying to win over the small band of existing adherents of small left groups.


The sectarian attitude seems to come from yourself in this regard.

I was referring to religious/communal sectarianism rather than political sectarianism. As far as political sectarianism goes, that means putting the organisational interests of your group ahead of those of the socialist movement. I can't be "sectarian" about Eirigi because we are not part of the same movement in the first place.


I am unsure if it is representative of the Socialist Party, as I have seen Eirigi and Joe Higgins share a platform, apparently amicably

This has nothing to do with sharing a platform. The Socialist Party will speak from the same platform as a wide range of forces. It doesn't mean that we see anything positive in the politics of those forces. When it comes to Eirigi, I have no problem with working with their members around single issues on a principled basis which doesn't confuse such cooperation with a general political alliance.


They have clearly opposed any military campaign at this stage and nobody claims that they have a military wing, but it seems that you are the lone voice that disputes this as you have associated them by implication with the killing of a PSNI officer.

This is gibberish. I haven't mentioned the killing of a PSNI officer, still less associated Eirigi with it.

Eirigi are tactically opposed to waging a terrorist campaign at the moment and claim not to have a military wing and I see no reason not to believe them. They do however defend the Provisional's terrorist campaign in the recent past and hold open the possibility of conditions changing to enable a more successful terrorist campaign in the future.

And no, before the predictable dimwits weigh in talking about pacifism, I am not a pacifist. I am however opposed to the bloody and counterproductive tactic of terrorism.

C. Flower
09-05-2011, 02:26 PM
Most of Fianna Fail's membership and support has come from the working class over the years, which doesn't make the politics of Fianna Fail any less repugnant.

A completely false and inaccurate comparison. Eirigi's membership and leadership are predominantly from the working class. They are explicitly a socialist and revolutionary organisation that frames it's republicanism in terms of anti-imperialism, not religious sectarianism. Undoubtedly, it has recruited new members from left republicans disillusioned with Sinn Fein, and imo it will be a tough battle to maintain to maintain cohesion as a socialist movement - but that is natural and inevitable. The ULA will have equivalent pressures to deal with and does not even seem to start from a basis of socialism and marxism.


...As for their membership, if they ever become a significant factor then it would be appropriate to spend some time and energy winning over their supporters. That would not entail pretending to have things in common, to be part of the same movement or to have any time for the politics of their organisation. It would entail taking a hard line against the dead end of left nationalism. At the moment however, Eirigi are a small left nationalist sect and there is little less purposeful than spending time trying to win over the small band of existing adherents of small left groups.

With respect, the Socialist Party itself would not pretend to be a mass movement and seems to be able to mobilise quite small numbers of people.
However, I think the numbers are immaterial, it is what the tradition and membership represents, and any Marxist would wish to engage in debate with them. Even if your claim that they are nationalists, no socialists, was right, the example of Marx's interaction with the Fenians would come to mind as an example of a princi[led and constructive way to proceed.


I was referring to religious/communal sectarianism rather than political sectarianism. As far as political sectarianism goes, that means putting the organisational interests of your group ahead of those of the socialist movement. I can't be "sectarian" about Eirigi because we are not part of the same movement in the first place.


If that is the case, it must mean that the Socialist Party is moving rapidly to the right.


This has nothing to do with sharing a platform. The Socialist Party will speak from the same platform as a wide range of forces. It doesn't mean that we see anything positive in the politics of those forces. .

You don't think that the Connolly tradition in the Irish left should be engaged with ???


When it comes to Eirigi, I have no problem with working with their members around single issues on a principled basis which doesn't confuse such cooperation with a general political alliance

Nobody has asked for that.


This is gibberish. I haven't mentioned the killing of a PSNI officer, still less associated Eirigi with it.

You said this


The small protests against the British Queen's visit are all heavily branded dissident republican protests. There is no reason to help those groups to gain publicity, which is all that attending their protests would achieve. The sooner the dissidents crawl back under their rock the better.

I think that readers other than myself none of them, so far as I know, being supporters of Eirigi, took this to be a piece of felon setting, lumping Eirigi in under the tabloid terminology of "dissident republicans"

You then go on to go at it again. When and where in eirigi's programme or actions is there any evidence that they want to restart a campaign such as the one run by the Provisionals (with whom the Socialist Party in the Daíl is happy to co-operate through the Technical Group) ?

Even the British State doesn't "claim" that Eirigi has a military wing.


Eirigi are tactically opposed to waging a terrorist campaign at the moment and claim not to have a military wing and I see no reason not to believe them. They do however defend the Provisional's terrorist campaign in the recent past and hold open the possibility of conditions changing to enable a more successful terrorist campaign in the future.


And no, before the predictable dimwits weigh in talking about pacifism, I am not a pacifist. I am however opposed to the bloody and counterproductive tactic of terrorism.

There you go again with the felon setting.

This all reads like a huge diversion from the fact that a fairly diverse group of people on this thread all said they found the Socialist Party position of not demonstrating to be pusillanimous and compliant in practice with the onslaught of propoganda coming at the working class in the form of Royal this and that ( Royal babies probably already being readied in an incubator somewhere ) in order to stupefy us while "austerity", the destruction of the remains of the Welfare State, firesale of national assets and impoverishment all round is dished out to us.

scrawledincrayon
09-05-2011, 03:06 PM
A completely false and inaccurate comparison. Eirigi's membership and leadership are predominantly from the working class. They are explicitly a socialist and revolutionary organisation that frames it's republicanism in terms of anti-imperialism, not religious sectarianism.

They are functionally a left nationalist group, recruiting on the basis of sectarian division. I don't care in the slightest if most of them are demographically from working class backgrounds, and I don't care in the slightest if they adopt a verbal affiliation with socialism.


Undoubtedly, it has recruited new members from left republicans disillusioned with Sinn Fein, and imo it will be a tough battle to maintain to maintain cohesion as a socialist movement

Their new members are recruited on the basis that the Provos aren't nationalist enough and aren't angry enough Catholic communalists. Their original members were also ex-Provos.


The ULA will have equivalent pressures to deal with and does not even seem to start from a basis of socialism and marxism.

The Socialist Party is a socialist and marxist organisation. The ULA is not a Marxist organisation, at least at the moment, rather it is an organisation which includes Marxists amongst others in an attempt to provide working class political representation and organisation. Eirigi is a left nationalist group.


With respect,

Why bother including this part? It's evident from your comments in this thread that you do not in fact feel much respect for the politics of the Socialist Party.


the Socialist Party itself would not pretend to be a mass movement and seems to be able to mobilise quite small numbers of people.

Yes indeed. Being the largest socialist group in Ireland is like being the tallest dwarf in the circus.


However, I think the numbers are immaterial, it is what the tradition and membership represents, and any Marxist would wish to engage in debate with them. Even if your claim that they are nationalists, no socialists, was right, the example of Marx's interaction with the Fenians would come to mind as an example of a princi[led and constructive way to proceed.

Marx "engaged" with the Fenians because they were a substantial political force which a significant number of people sympathised with. Eirigi are not such a force.
There is nothing more pointless than trying to win over the members of small political sects. It is a complete waste of time.


If that is the case, it must mean that the Socialist Party is moving rapidly to the right.

The Socialist Party are part of the socialist movement and the workers movement. Eirigi are part of the nationalist movement.


You don't think that the Connolly tradition in the Irish left should be engaged with ???

Groups like Eirigi and the IRSP do not represent a "Connolly tradition", they represent a left nationalist tradition, and once again, no, I don't see any purpose in engaging with them in any serious way. Were they to grow significantly it would be worth engaging with them, but that would not involve conceding a milimetre to them.


I think that readers other than myself none of them, so far as I know, being supporters of Eirigi, took this to be a piece of felon setting, lumping Eirigi in under the tabloid terminology of "dissident republicans"

Eirigi are anti-Provo Republicans, something which is commonly described dissident republicanism. I at no point claimed that they had a military wing or were engaged in terrorism.


You then go on to go at it again. When and where in eirigi's programme or actions is there any evidence that they want to restart a campaign such as the one run by the Provisionals

1) They openly defend the Provo terrorist campaign of the past.
2) Their arguments against the current terrorist campaigns are all about timing. Those arguments necessarily leave open the possibility that with better timing a terrorist campaign might be desirable.


This all reads like a huge diversion from the fact that a fairly diverse group of people on this thread all said they found the Socialist Party position of not demonstrating to be pusillanimous and compliant in practice with the onslaught of propoganda ...

Most of the handful of people whining in this thread are left nationalists as far as I can see, and at least one of them is a Stalinist. I am supremely uninterested in the views of left nationalists, while the views of Stalinists are worth less than the steam from a rat's ****. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I regard it as a minor positive if the Socialist Party's stance annoys such people.

As far as I can see, you are the first person to raise the notion that the state visit is part of some attempt to "stupify" the masses with Royalty and distract them from austerity.

C. Flower
09-05-2011, 03:22 PM
They are functionally a left nationalist group, recruiting on the basis of sectarian division. I don't care in the slightest if most of them are demographically from working class backgrounds, and I don't care in the slightest if they adopt a verbal affiliation with socialism.


Would you like to substantiate that with reference to their policies and political position ?


Their new members are recruited on the basis that the Provos aren't nationalist enough and aren't angry enough Catholic communalists. Their original members were also ex-Provos.

Ditto. Eirigi was started in Dublin, five years ago, btw.



The Socialist Party is a socialist and marxist organisation. The ULA is not a Marxist organisation, at least at the moment, rather it is an organisation which includes Marxists amongst others in an attempt to provide working class political representation and organisation. Eirigi is a left nationalist group.

You have yet to demonstrate that. Would you like to say what you base that claim on ? It is an advance though, that you acknowledge that there are members who are Marxists.
Have you read their programme, adopted by the membership ?


Why bother including this part? It's evident from your comments in this thread that you do not in fact feel much respect for the politics of the Socialist Party.

I've attended ULA meetings and while I have criticised SP policy and positions at times, have praised SP reps on other occasions.


Marx "engaged" with the Fenians because they were a substantial political force which a significant number of people sympathised with. Eirigi are not such a force.
There is nothing more pointless than trying to win over the members of small political sects. It is a complete waste of time.

This seems to me to be incorrect and not rational. By this argument, he would have supported Fianna Fail. Marx did more than engage with the Fenians. He conducted an energetic campaign for the release of Fenian prisoners convicted of bombings.


The Socialist Party are part of the socialist movement and the workers movement. Eirigi are part of the nationalist movement.

You have not in any way demonstrated that to be a fact.


Groups like Eirigi and the IRSP do not represent a "Connolly tradition", they represent a left nationalist tradition, and once again, no, I don't see any purpose in engaging with them in any serious way. Were they to grow significantly it would be worth engaging with them, but that would not involve conceding a milimetre to them.

Is this why they held an event that was centred on Connolly's ideas last Sat. ?


Eirigi are anti-Provo Republicans, something which is commonly described dissident republicanism. I at no point claimed that they had a military wing or were engaged in terrorism.

You keep jumping around. A minute ago they were left-republicans.


1) They openly defend the Provo terrorist campaign of the past.
2) Their arguments against the current terrorist campaigns are all about timing. Those arguments necessarily leave open the possibility that with better timing a terrorist campaign might be desirable.

Please substantiate with reference to some kind of reliable source.


Most of the handful of people whining in this thread are left nationalists as far as I can see, and at least one of them is a Stalinist. I am supremely uninterested in the views of left nationalists, while the views of Stalinists are worth less than the steam from a rat's ****. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I regard it as a minor positive if the Socialist Party's stance annoys such people.

As far as I can see, you are the first person to raise the notion that the state visit is part of some attempt to "stupify" the masses with Royalty and distract them from austerity.

I'm out of time to reply to the rest of this, but it seems that you are not able or prepared to do anything other than spill out a barrage of stereotyping without providing any factual basis to your various claims. You don't seem to know or care what Eirigi's programme and policies are or to be interested in providing a reasoned argument in favour of the Socialist Party's position on QE2's visit.

This is a pity, as the substantive issues would I think have been worth exploring.

What do you think the purpose of the visit by "royalty" is ? It certainly is a "bread and circuses" item, but much more than that, in terms of symbolism, precedence, diplomatic implications etc. and represents a shift in the relationship of this State with the U. K.

Sam Lord
09-05-2011, 09:58 PM
.... have seen Eirigi and Joe Higgins share a platform ....

Very interesting Cactus. It completely exposes what is being thrown out here.

If Joe Higgins is happy to share a platform with Éirígí on one issue then all the nonsense about the "Socialist" Party being unable to even have a protest against a visit of the head of the British Armed Forces because Éirígí were also protesting is clearly just hogwash. All this stuff about "dissidents" is just some big dirty red herring they are trawling across the issue to cover up their craven acquiescence.

C. Flower
09-05-2011, 11:34 PM
This is gibberish. I haven't mentioned the killing of a PSNI officer, still less associated Eirigi with it.



It was mentioned on the Socialist Party website.


Dissident republicans will be on the streets protesting against Queen Elizabeth’s visit. The Socialist Party will not be supporting their protests which are inherently sectarian. The murder of PSNI officer Ronan Kerr and the recent spate of attempted bombings in Northern Ireland are a warning that there are still backward sectarian forces attempting to drag us back to the horror of the “Troubles”. The strategy of the dissidents is based on carrying out attacks which will whip up sectarian division and bring down state repression on working class Catholic communities. This reactionary strategy should be opposed by all working class people. The national divisions on this island will not be resolved through the failed strategy of the armed struggle but by building a mass movement for socialism based on working class unity.

antiestablishmentarian
09-05-2011, 11:43 PM
[QUOTE]The Socialist Party has a concrete position on the question: It is opposed to British Queen's visit.
Then why not demonstrate against it? You can do so without having to go near protests organised by the other groups. It's quite easy to distinguish this from dissident protests if you want to, assemble somewhere else, march under your own banner and make clear why you're doing so separately.



There's no fudge, no confusion, no avoiding the issue.

But there is: ye're opposed to it, but you won't do anything about it. It's contradictory to say the least. Even for relatively minor issues which had no class content the SP has consistently mobilised for and attended protests such as the Save Our Slots protest in Limerick in 2007 over the retention of slots at Shannon, which was addressed by Willie O'Dea and the Limerick Chamber of Commerce.


It's extremely straightforward in fact. The only confusion is on the part of a few bewildered left republicans on the internet who keep affecting to be "shocked" when they discover over and over again that the Socialist Party is not a nationalist grouping. Of course, most of them aren't "shocked" at all, they are merely engaged in furthering the pretence that republicanism is the "real" revolutionary tradition in Ireland.

The Socialist Party also has a very clear position on unionism, by the way, which is that it's a backward, reactionary, political movement. There's no softness in the Socialist Party's analysis of unionism, that's just another of the slanders peddled by left nationalist buffoons, something stemming from their manichean world view, where anyone critical of republicanism is assumed to be a closet unionist.

Ordinarily, I'd be a little more polite than I've been in this thread, but after seeing the same dreary twaddle from internet left nationalists for the hundredth time, I have no more patience with them.
I'm aware of the SP's position on the national question and unionism.

Sam Lord
09-05-2011, 11:46 PM
the SP has consistently mobilised for and attended protests such as the Save Our Slots protest in Limerick in 2007 over the retention of slots at Shannon, which was addressed by Willie O'Dea and the Limerick Chamber of Commerce.


:D:D

C. Flower
13-05-2011, 04:06 PM
A number of groups are demonstrating against the Visit. There was an anti-Royal Visit banner on the "Repudiate the Debt" event at the Daíl yesterday (possibly CPI). I see that People before Profit are demonstrating and the Galway Anti-War movement. The campaign seems to be gathering momentum.

There's an SWP Meeting on the "Horrible History of the House of Windsor" tonight.


Tonight 7.30pm in the Unite Hall 55-56 Middle Abbey St (opposite back of Arnotts) Dublin 1.

John Newsinger speaks on the history of the British Royals!

C. Flower
13-05-2011, 05:18 PM
Gardai taking posters for this year's annual Anarchist Book Fair off a lamp post.

YouTube - Garda scraping stickers off lamp post in Dublin

Sam Lord
13-05-2011, 08:54 PM
Just noticed this on the Workers Solidarity Movement website.



The WSM is planning to join the eirigi organised March on the Castle from 5.30pm on Wednesday, May 18th at St Catherine’s Church on Thomas Street, Dublin 8. The march will depart for Dublin Castle at roughly 6.30pm. The protest which will include speeches, music and street theatre is expected to last until at least 8.30pm. If your feeling a little outraged by all the disruption I'll see you there, on the streets.



So another group supporting dissident republican terrorism.

The position adopted by the Socialist Party on the visit could turn out to be the most ludicrous ever adopted by any "left" party in the country on any matter.

Kildare North
14-05-2011, 06:17 PM
Have to say I'm disappointed with the SP on this one. A serious missed oppertunity here. I don't for a second go for the ridiculous slander thrown at the SP over the "national question" but this is just a ridiculous decision.

Opposition to the Queen's visit from an anti-nationalist perspective would have been a great addition to things. A chance to point out the ludicracy of inviting the old bat over here at the expense of tax payers during a time of economic ruin. An analysis of this situation totally detatched from nationalism could have been very benificial. It also would have provided a chance to assert class division as a major talking point. Oppertunity missed to the fabled "political correctness gone mad" in my opinion.

(I do realise there will be such opposition protests from other groups, but the SP with 2 TD's and a high profile could potentially make the topics more prominent in the mainstream media)

C. Flower
14-05-2011, 07:50 PM
Have to say I'm disappointed with the SP on this one. A serious missed oppertunity here. I don't for a second go for the ridiculous slander thrown at the SP over the "national question" but this is just a ridiculous decision.

Opposition to the Queen's visit from an anti-nationalist perspective would have been a great addition to things. A chance to point out the ludicracy of inviting the old bat over here at the expense of tax payers during a time of economic ruin. An analysis of this situation totally detatched from nationalism could have been very benificial. It also would have provided a chance to assert class division as a major talking point. Oppertunity missed to the fabled "political correctness gone mad" in my opinion.

(I do realise there will be such opposition protests from other groups, but the SP with 2 TD's and a high profile could potentially make the topics more prominent in the mainstream media)

There were plenty of protests on the day of the "Royal Wedding" in the UK by anti-monarchists, republicans and radical young people.

The sole reason I can see for the SP boycotting the demonstrations in Ireland, and refusing to hold one of their own, seems to be to carry out a finger-pointing exercise that tries erroneously to identify éirigi with acts of terrorism.

It seems to me that the Socialist Party should withdraw this accusation, at the very least.

With Labour absorbed into the Government, and melded into FG so that the join can't be seen, is it possible that the Socialist Party is making a sharp leap to the right in the attempt become the main "respectable" left opposition ?

Starfire
14-05-2011, 09:30 PM
The visit is an excellent opportunity to identify and record those who are sympathetic to a foreign power - help with the increased workload, but do it quietly :)

antiestablishmentarian
15-05-2011, 01:43 AM
[QUOTE]There were plenty of protests on the day of the "Royal Wedding" in the UK by anti-monarchists, republicans and radical young people.

The sole reason I can see for the SP boycotting the demonstrations in Ireland, and refusing to hold one of their own, seems to be to carry out a finger-pointing exercise that tries erroneously to identify éirigi with acts of terrorism.
They'd see them more so as nationalists than as terrorists tbh.





With Labour absorbed into the Government, and melded into FG so that the join can't be seen, is it possible that the Socialist Party is making a sharp leap to the right in the attempt become the main "respectable" left opposition ?
We'll have to wait and see but I doubt it. The membership wouldn't stand for it and the SP is a genuinely democratic organisation, whatever my disagreements with it would be.

C. Flower
15-05-2011, 02:23 AM
[quote=C. Flower;146590]
They'd see them more so as nationalists than as terrorists tbh.


The Socialist Party website entry linked to the OP gives a different impression.
If that's inadvertent, then it could easily be clarified by editing the entry.


We'll have to wait and see but I doubt it. The membership wouldn't stand for it and the SP is a genuinely democratic organisation, whatever my disagreements with it would be.


I think there will be a lot of political shifting about in the next while and not just in the Socialist Party.

Do you think that the position on the Visit is representative of the views of the wider membership of the Party ?

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 02:06 PM
The sole reason I can see for the SP boycotting the demonstrations in Ireland, and refusing to hold one of their own, seems to be to carry out a finger-pointing exercise that tries erroneously to identify éirigi with acts of terrorism.

This is crazy stuff.

The Socialist Party has not identified Eirigi with acts of terrorism and has made no accusation to withdraw. You invented that accusation in this thread and now you are inventing a demand that an accusation which was never made be withdrawn!

The Socialist Party has not announced a boycott of demonstrations in Ireland, but simply that it won't be supporting demonstrations by dissident republicans. It has never, to my knowledge, supported any demonstration by dissident republicans on any issue and it won't be starting any time soon.

The Socialist Party remains opposed to the British Queen's state visit.

This thread is full of misinformation and smears put about by a combination of ultranationalist nutters with an axe to grind and some apparently bewildered individuals.

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 02:10 PM
Do you think that the position on the Visit is representative of the views of the wider membership of the Party ?

The Socialist Party's opposition to the British Queen's visit, as expressed quite eloquently by Joe Higgins, is entirely representative of the views of the wider membership of the party.

The Socialist Party's opposition to dissident republicans and unwillingness to support their endeavours is also entirely representative of the views of the wider membership of the party.

antiestablishmentarian
16-05-2011, 02:14 PM
The Socialist Party has not announced a boycott of demonstrations in Ireland, but simply that it won't be supporting demonstrations by dissident republicans. It has never, to my knowledge, supported any demonstration by dissident republicans on any issue and it won't be starting any time soon.

The Socialist Party remains opposed to the British Queen's state visit.

This thread is full of misinformation and smears put about by a combination of ultranationalist nutters with an axe to grind and some apparently bewildered individuals.

Yes, but as I and others have said, that doesn't stop the SP from organising under it's own banner at a separate time and place from the dissident republican groups. It seems a bit erroneous that the SP would oppose this visit and yet do nothing about it, especially given the clampdown on freedom of movement, assembly and expression being put in place in Dublin at the moment to facilitate it.

Sam Lord
16-05-2011, 02:27 PM
Good article by Connolly on the occasion of the visit of George. The SP would do well to study it ...




Fellow-Workers,

As you are aware from reading the daily and weekly newspapers, we are about to be blessed with a visit from King George V.

Knowing from previous experience of Royal Visits, as well as from the Coronation orgies of the past few weeks, that the occasion will be utilised to make propaganda on behalf of royalty and aristocracy against the oncoming forces of democracy and National freedom, we desire to place before you some few reasons why you should unanimously refuse to countenance this visit, or to recognise it by your presence at its attendant processions or demonstrations. We appeal to you as workers, speaking to workers, whether your work be that of the brain or of the hand – manual or mental toil – it is of you and your children we are thinking; it is your cause we wish to safeguard and foster.

The future of the working class requires that all political and social positions should be open to all men and women; that all privileges of birth or wealth be abolished, and that every man or woman born into this land should have an equal opportunity to attain to the proudest position in the land. The Socialist demands that the only birthright necessary to qualify for public office should be the birthright of our common humanity.

Believing as we do that there is nothing on earth more sacred than humanity, we deny all allegiance to this institution of royalty, and hence we can only regard the visit of the King as adding fresh fuel to the fire of hatred with which we regard the plundering institutions of which he is the representative. Let the capitalist and landlord class flock to exalt him; he is theirs; in him they see embodied the idea of caste and class; they glorify him and exalt his importance that they might familiarise the public mind with the conception of political inequality, knowing well that a people mentally poisoned by the adulation of royalty can never attain to that spirit of self-reliant democracy necessary for the attainment of social freedom. The mind accustomed to political kings can easily be reconciled to social kings – capitalist kings of the workshop, the mill, the railway, the ships and the docks. Thus coronation and king's visits are by our astute neversleeping masters made into huge Imperialist propagandist campaigns in favour of political and social schemes against democracy. But if our masters and rulers are sleepless in their schemes against us, so we, rebels against their rule, must never sleep in our appeal to our fellows to maintain as publicly our belief in the dignity of our class – in the ultimate sovereignty of those who labour.

What is monarchy? From whence does it derive its sanction? What has been its gift to humanity? Monarchy is a survival of the tyranny imposed by the hand of greed and treachery upon the human race in the darkest and most ignorant days of our history. It derives its only sanction from the sword of the marauder, and the helplessness of the producer, and its gifts to humanity are unknown, save as they can be measured in the pernicious examples of triumphant and shameless iniquities.

Every class in society save royalty, and especially British royalty, has through some of its members contributed something to the elevation of the race. But neither in science, nor in art, nor in literature, nor in exploration, nor in mechanical invention, nor in humanising of laws, nor in any sphere of human activity has a representative of British royalty helped forward the moral, intellectual or material improvement of mankind. But that royal family has opposed every forward move, fought every reform, persecuted every patriot, and intrigued against every good cause. Slandering every friend of the people, it has befriended every oppressor. Eulogised today by misguided clerics, it has been notorious in history for the revolting nature of its crimes. Murder, treachery, adultery, incest, theft, perjury – every crime known to man has been committed by some one or other of the race of monarchs from whom King George is proud to trace his descent.

“His blood
Has crept through scoundrels since the flood.”

We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.

Fellow-workers, stand by the dignity of your class. All these parading royalties, all this insolent aristocracy, all these grovelling, dirt-eating capitalist traitors, all these are but signs of disease in any social state – diseases which a royal visit brings to a head and spews in all its nastiness before our horrified eyes. But as the recognition of the disease is the first stage towards its cure, so that we may rid our social state of its political and social diseases, we must recognise the elements of corruption. Hence, in bringing them all together and exposing their unity, even a royal visit may help us to understand and understanding, help us to know how to destroy the royal, aristocratic and capitalistic classes who live upon our labour. Their workshops, their lands, their mills, their factories, their ships, their railways must be voted into our hands who alone use them, public ownership must take the place of capitalist ownership, social democracy replace political and social inequality, the sovereignty of labour must supersede and destroy the sovereignty of birth and the monarchy of capitalism.

Ours be the task to enlighten the ignorant among our class, to dissipate and destroy the political and social superstitions of the enslaved masses and to hasten the coming day when, in the words of Joseph Brenan, the fearless patriot of ’48, all the world will maintain

“The Right Divine of Labour
To be first of earthly things;
That the Thinker and the Worker
Are Manhood’s only Kings.”

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 02:33 PM
Yes, but as I and others have said, that doesn't stop the SP from organising under it's own banner at a separate time and place from the dissident republican groups.

Nothing except the fact that it would cost time, money and effort and would be very unlikely to mobilise a significant number of people given that (a) Dublin City Council are cynically preventing any postering and (b) the ultranationalist grouplets, due to the strong emphasis they put on the visit, will be putting all of their resources into mobilising rival protests.

The Socialist Party has already made plain its opposition to the visit, in print, in the media and in the Dail. If there are protests organised which look likely to attract a significant number of people, are not simply profile-raising exercises for republican groups, and are not organised under nationalist slogans, the Socialist Party would attend them like any other protest it broadly agrees with. I'm unaware of any such protest - the WSM for instance has announced it will be joining Eirigi's protest.

matt
16-05-2011, 02:34 PM
Good article by Connolly on the occasion of the visit of George. The SP would do well to study it ...

Somebody should have shown that speech to his (great/grand ?) nephew before he went on Liveline saying how James Connolly would have welcomed the old hoor.

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 02:36 PM
Good article by Connolly on the occasion of the visit of George. The SP would do well to study it ...

What exactly in that article do you think that the Socialist Party disagrees with?

5intheface
16-05-2011, 03:14 PM
The Socialist Party's opposition to the British Queen's visit, as expressed quite eloquently by Joe Higgins, is entirely representative of the views of the wider membership of the party.

The Socialist Party's opposition to dissident republicans and unwillingness to support their endeavours is also entirely representative of the views of the wider membership of the party.

Regardless of their approach to the rights or wrongs of a Royal visit, surely at this point, The Socialist Party should be motivated to protest at the sickening and morally corrupt policing of the visit which has seen the civil rights of the whole population eroded, trod over and scorned.

If the SP can't bring themselves to defending working class people at such a basic level then what are they and what are they for? And whether you choose to believe it or not, I have no axe to grind with the SP but they have completely plumetted in my estimation.

I'll tell you what it looks like to the rest of us, the SP are refusing to join in any protest in case they might be 'sullied' by assocciation to any Republican organisations whether they have ever been involved in violent activity or not.

Now are the SP worse than the majority of Political Parties who have supported and encouraged this visit? Of course not. It's just we might have expected a little more.

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 03:20 PM
Regardless of their approach to the rights or wrongs of a Royal visit, surely at this point, The Socialist Party should be motivated to protest at the sickening and morally corrupt policing of the visit which has seen the civil rights of the whole population eroded, trod over and scorned.

If there is a broad based protest organised against this, the Socialist Party would be unlikely to have a problem in supporting it. There is however, no such protest that I'm aware of.


I'll tell you what it looks like to the rest of us, the SP are refusing to join in any protest in case they might be 'sullied' by assocciation to any Republican organisations whether they have ever been involved in violent activity or not.

The Socialist Party is not, and has never been, in the business of bulking up the protests of dissident republican grouplets, whether they are involved in violent activity or not. It has never joined a protest organised by dissident republican grouplets and it is unlikely to do so in the future.

5intheface
16-05-2011, 03:28 PM
If there is a broad based protest organised against this, the Socialist Party would be unlikely to have a problem in supporting it. There is however, no such protest that I'm aware of.

That reads that the SP would join in a protest only if everyone else supports it too and you can pick and choose those who want to join in. That's not good.


The Socialist Party is not, and has never been, in the business of bulking up the protests of dissident republican grouplets, whether they are involved in violent activity or not.

And so working class people with no interest in Republicanism will have no opportunity to stand up against what is the epitome of Imperialism.

The Guards are going to crack skulls but that's okay, Republicans are not really full blown people.

C. Flower
16-05-2011, 03:32 PM
Nothing except the fact that it would cost time, money and effort and would be very unlikely to mobilise a significant number of people given that (a) Dublin City Council are cynically preventing any postering and (b) the ultranationalist grouplets, due to the strong emphasis they put on the visit, will be putting all of their resources into mobilising rival protests.

The Socialist Party has already made plain its opposition to the visit, in print, in the media and in the Dail. If there are protests organised which look likely to attract a significant number of people, are not simply profile-raising exercises for republican groups, and are not organised under nationalist slogans, the Socialist Party would attend them like any other protest it broadly agrees with. I'm unaware of any such protest - the WSM for instance has announced it will be joining Eirigi's protest.

Put your marching boots on then. The Socialist Workers' Party has a March Against Queen's Visit organised for tomorrow evening.

Assemble 6.30 p.m. at the GPO.

Although I can't for the life of me think why you need your hands held in this way.

C. Flower
16-05-2011, 03:41 PM
What exactly in that article do you think that the Socialist Party disagrees with?


Fellow-workers, stand by the dignity of your class

?

Sam Lord
16-05-2011, 04:20 PM
What exactly in that article do you think that the Socialist Party disagrees with?


His view that royal visits were a significant matter for the Irish working class and should be strenuously opposed. Your view is that it is some minor matter not really worth bothering about ... a distraction from your "real work".

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 04:48 PM
Although I can't for the life of me think why you need your hands held in this way.

What on earth are you talking about?

This entire thread is a manufactured controversy stemming from a single line in an article opposing the Queen's visit which said that the Socialist Party wouldn't be joining any dissident republican protests. The Socialist Party never joins any dissident republican protests on any issue.

Nobody is asking for their hands to be held. Nobody is opposing protests in general. The whole thread consists of a mixture of confusion and axe-grinding.

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 04:49 PM
?

What?

Sam Lord
16-05-2011, 04:53 PM
What on earth are you talking about?

This entire thread is a manufactured controversy stemming from a single line in an article opposing the Queen's visit which said that the Socialist Party wouldn't be joining any dissident republican protests. The Socialist Party never joins any dissident republican protests on any issue.

Nobody is asking for their hands to be held. Nobody is opposing protests in general. The whole thread consists of a mixture of confusion and axe-grinding.


Never mind the "dissidents" ... your big red herring, imo. Where are your protests?

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 04:54 PM
That reads that the SP would join in a protest only if everyone else supports it too and you can pick and choose those who want to join in. That's not good.

Only if you have trouble with reading.

The Socialist Party won't be joining dissident republican protests on this or on any other issue. That doesn't mean that the Socialist Party won't attend any protest that dissident republicans attend, it means that we won't attend protests which are organised by dissident republicans to further dissident republican aims and raise the profile of dissident republican organisations.


The Guards are going to crack skulls but that's okay, Republicans are not really full blown people.

Now you too are inventing things and putting them in the Socialist Party's mouth.

The Socialist Party has always opposed state repression, including state repression of people we disagree with. Republicanism is a backwards nationalist creed, but that doesn't mean that we support the Gardai when they assault republicans.

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 04:55 PM
Never mind the "dissidents" ... your big red herring, imo. Where are your protests?

The next protest the Socialist Party is organising is outside ISME's banquet, opposing attacks on Registered Employment Agreements.

I don't expect to see many dissident republicans there.

C. Flower
16-05-2011, 05:11 PM
What on earth are you talking about?

This entire thread is a manufactured controversy stemming from a single line in an article opposing the Queen's visit which said that the Socialist Party wouldn't be joining any dissident republican protests. The Socialist Party never joins any dissident republican protests on any issue.

Nobody is asking for their hands to be held. Nobody is opposing protests in general. The whole thread consists of a mixture of confusion and axe-grinding.

You edited my post to omit reference to the SWP demonstration at the GPO.

Will the SP be joining it?

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 05:19 PM
You edited my post to omit reference to the SWP demonstration at the GPO.

Will the SP be joining it?

I included the parts of your post I was responding to rather than repeating the whole post. That's normally considered good practice.

As for the SWP's protest, this is the first I've heard of it and I obviously can't make commitments on behalf of the Socialist Party off the top of my head. In principle, the Socialist Party is unlikely to have any problem attending such a protest.

C. Flower
16-05-2011, 06:10 PM
I included the parts of your post I was responding to rather than repeating the whole post. That's normally considered good practice.

As for the SWP's protest, this is the first I've heard of it and I obviously can't make commitments on behalf of the Socialist Party off the top of my head. In principle, the Socialist Party is unlikely to have any problem attending such a protest.

Hope to see you there, so :)

Secret Squirrel
16-05-2011, 06:26 PM
That's nice. Now that the Socialist Party will be protesting, the dissies will most likely stay clear lest they're associated with the Socialist Party. As a result there's no need for all this security nonsense, and éirígí will be free to protest against his Edinburghness and his wife. :)

scrawledincrayon
16-05-2011, 06:40 PM
That's nice. Now that the Socialist Party will be protesting, the dissies will most likely stay clear lest they're associated with the Socialist Party. As a result there's no need for all this security nonsense, and éirígí will be free to protest against his Edinburghness and his wife. :)

As I understand it, each of the Republican grouplets has its own separately branded protests.

Secret Squirrel
16-05-2011, 07:05 PM
That's nice too. I wouldn't concern myself too much with the anticipated actions of other grouplets.
It's probably best to do your own thing for your own reasons.

Fraxinus
16-05-2011, 09:22 PM
Put your marching boots on then. The Socialist Workers' Party has a March Against Queen's Visit organised for tomorrow evening.

Assemble 6.30 p.m. at the GPO.

Although I can't for the life of me think why you need your hands held in this way.

Why is it so hard to find out when and where everyone is protesting! Indymedia only lists eirigi protests. The one you mention C is down here for 6pm http://www.swp.ie/events/iawm-black-balloon-protest/4357

Is that the latest protest organised by any group?

Uncorruptable
17-05-2011, 10:50 AM
Frankly it sounds like cowardice masked by a thin veneer of principle.

How on earth do you make it 'cowardice'?

You think that after publicly opposing it & publishing an article in their paper they would be brave by then just going on the street for a few hours to protest.

I actually think the public position taken via the Socialist paper, and the little step further of going on the street to oppose it further are not what distinguishes between 'Bravery' & 'Cowardice'.


There were plenty of protests on the day of the "Royal Wedding" in the UK by anti-monarchists, republicans and radical young people.

Was there? I chose to,

1. Not read anything about it.
2. Not watch any coverage of it on TV.
3. Not listen to any of it on radio.
4. Not get into discussion on the net about it anywhere.

Was the dress nice lads? Seeing as all you die hards tuned in:rolleyes:


With Labour absorbed into the Government, and melded into FG so that the join can't be seen, is it possible that the Socialist Party is making a sharp leap to the right in the attempt become the main "respectable" left opposition ?

I seriously doubt this will happen, the entire reason that the ULA has 5 TD's is the position of both the SP & PBP have taken on not capitulating to the mainstream establishment protocols & politics. If they make any moves to the right the entire movement will disintergrate rapidly & there will be no one left involved to move to the right.

I for one will never be a part of something that concedes to the demands of the ruling class, to conform in your approach to the establishment, in order to further the objectives of the movement.


The next protest the Socialist Party is organising is outside ISME's banquet, opposing attacks on Registered Employment Agreements.


Now this is what is more relevant really that protesting on the streets elizabeth windsors visit, people do not recognise the 'queen' of england as the reasons they are suffering any hardship right now, they are more worried presently about their wage rates being cut as a direct result of the economic disaster we have been dragged into.

I wont be out protesting elizabeth windsors visit, reading anything about it, wathcing anything about it as she doesnt deserve any expenditure of resources being wasted on her when it will not affect the more pressing worries of the people of our country right now.

Uncorruptable
17-05-2011, 11:28 AM
Just came across this,

http://www.mail.com/int/news/uk/421722-bomb-find-precedes-queens-arrival-ireland.html#.57322-stage-teaser1-1

Two pictures to view on article, second one wont do Eirigi any good being reported like this on american sites like the one above.

C. Flower
17-05-2011, 12:28 PM
Just came across this,

http://www.mail.com/int/news/uk/421722-bomb-find-precedes-queens-arrival-ireland.html#.57322-stage-teaser1-1

Two pictures to view on article, second one wont do Eirigi any good being reported like this on american sites like the one above.

I would think that printing an irrelevant photo says more about the website than about eirigi.

Eirigi, like the SWP, has organised a demonstration today.



At 1pm on Tuesday [May 17] éirígí is organising an alternative wreath-laying ceremony at No 16 Moore Street in Dublin – the location of the final headquarters of the 1916 rising. Following the wreath-laying ceremony the protest will move as close to the Garden of Remembrance as possible. All are welcome and don’t forget to bring the noise. Whistles, fog-horns, bin lids and drums and anything else that will make a racket! 10,000 Gardaí and soldiers might prevent Windsor from seeing any protests but they can’t prevent her from hearing them.

C. Flower
17-05-2011, 12:34 PM
How on earth do you make it 'cowardice'?

You think that after publicly opposing it & publishing an article in their paper they would be brave by then just going on the street for a few hours to protest.

I actually think the public position taken via the Socialist paper, and the little step further of going on the street to oppose it further are not what distinguishes between 'Bravery' & 'Cowardice'.



Was there? I chose to,

1. Not read anything about it.
2. Not watch any coverage of it on TV.
3. Not listen to any of it on radio.
4. Not get into discussion on the net about it anywhere.

Was the dress nice lads? Seeing as all you die hards tuned in:rolleyes:



I seriously doubt this will happen, the entire reason that the ULA has 5 TD's is the position of both the SP & PBP have taken on not capitulating to the mainstream establishment protocols & politics. If they make any moves to the right the entire movement will disintergrate rapidly & there will be no one left involved to move to the right.

I for one will never be a part of something that concedes to the demands of the ruling class, to conform in your approach to the establishment, in order to further the objectives of the movement.



Now this is what is more relevant really that protesting on the streets elizabeth windsors visit, people do not recognise the 'queen' of england as the reasons they are suffering any hardship right now, they are more worried presently about their wage rates being cut as a direct result of the economic disaster we have been dragged into.

I wont be out protesting elizabeth windsors visit, reading anything about it, wathcing anything about it as she doesnt deserve any expenditure of resources being wasted on her when it will not affect the more pressing worries of the people of our country right now.

You choose to boycott, and that's your choice. The objections here were to attacks on those who chose to protest.

What on earth makes you think that awareness of anti-monarchist actions in the UK means people were interested in the wedding dress ?

Uncorruptable
17-05-2011, 05:54 PM
You choose to boycott, and that's your choice. The objections here were to attacks on those who chose to protest.

What on earth makes you think that awareness of anti-monarchist actions in the UK means people were interested in the wedding dress ?

It was intended to be sarcastic, hence the roll eyes pic which denotes sarcasm.

My point was, if you tried to decipher it, was that there were a lot of people very scathingly attacking about the non protest of the SP but appeared to all have been viewers of the wedding across the water, kind of contradictory i thought to be so anti monarchy yet kept up to speed on the days proceeding when it was on.

(that wasnt sarcastic)

Uncorruptable
17-05-2011, 06:31 PM
You choose to boycott, and that's your choice. The objections here were to attacks on those who chose to protest.

?

Hmmm, having read through the first two pages again it apearred this thread was two pages in with objections around the SP choice to not protest while they did print it in their paper they dont agree with it, it wasnt until the end of page 2 that one poster threw out an objection to the SP adding to the protests themselves, on the whole the balance of opinion on the thread seems to be majority against the SP postion & minority agaisnt the protests being conducted or the SP not participating.

For the record, i encourage any one to protest if they so feel they have to, but the fact that the SP chose not to while making very clear they were against it being called 'cowardice' & suddenly a 'Sharp jump to the right' & wanting to be 'the respectable party' being levelled at them is simply utter salacious internet waffle.

C. Flower
17-05-2011, 06:32 PM
It was intended to be sarcastic, hence the roll eyes pic which denotes sarcasm.

My point was, if you tried to decipher it, was that there were a lot of people very scathingly attacking about the non protest of the SP but appeared to all have been viewers of the wedding across the water, kind of contradictory i thought to be so anti monarchy yet kept up to speed on the days proceeding when it was on.

(that wasnt sarcastic)

Would you like to name names of these dastardly dissident wedding watchers ?

Uncorruptable
17-05-2011, 06:45 PM
Would you like to name names of these dastardly dissident wedding watchers ?


Why not have a show of hands,

Who here,

1. Watched any footage of it be it live or news?
2. Read any articles on it in newspapers or mags?
3. Listened to any radio stations that discussed it at all?
4. Partcipated in any discussions online about it?

I can say 100% No to all,

Not one second of TV, radio, paper, or net from me.

Everyone?

Secret Squirrel
17-05-2011, 07:08 PM
I'm confused with reference to the second foto referred to on that mail. com link.
I see foto number2 as his Edingburghness's wife doing something with some foliage.

Picture number1 has two individuals walking past a wall, the wee girlie has spotted the camera man and is smiling at him. The writing on the wall behind them says "NO ROYAL" - (I've viewed the article on 2 high resolution PCs, with both using Firefox + IntExplorer.)

It's only when rightclicking the image and selecting View Image that the complete picture can be seen. ( It's 1,125x425 pixles ) and says No Royal Visit C.I.R.A.

Am I looking at the correct foto ? If not which one concerns Eirigi ?

Uncorruptable
17-05-2011, 08:18 PM
I am confused now, it was a link to a story put up today entitled,

'Irish police defuse bomb'

And the second picture had a foto of one of the eirigi posters that were put up around dublin for the protest today.

I would say the admin were either contacted about it or they saw sense as it portrayed a link to some military wing of eirigi, thats why i sadi it wouldnt do them any favors, bad web control from the IT guys off that site.

5intheface
17-05-2011, 08:37 PM
How on earth do you make it 'cowardice'?

You think that after publicly opposing it & publishing an article in their paper they would be brave by then just going on the street for a few hours to protest.

I actually think the public position taken via the Socialist paper, and the little step further of going on the street to oppose it further are not what distinguishes between 'Bravery' & 'Cowardice'.

If they had said they opposed the visit but wouldn't be protesting full stop then I wouldn't be commenting on their position. As I said earlier, they are pretty far down my list of targets set against the parties who supported and encouraged the visit.

My beef was with the manner in which they attacked the groups willing to step up and protest at not just the visit but the sickening lock down of many parts of the country.

Unfortunately I have been around long enough to see the left in Ireland continually shy away from legitimate protest using the spectre of Republican violence to achieve a moral high ground. Problem is, there's nothing to be gained on the moral high ground. To effect change, you have to get the hands dirty.

I don't disagree with your opinion on ignoring the media today and for the rest of her visit, these threads are about as much as I'm seeing. That doesn't mean that I can't be angry that Ireland's powers that be are immersing themselves in this lickspittle behaviour and I support any group making a stand whether I support their opinions on anything else or not.

Secret Squirrel
17-05-2011, 08:41 PM
Probably just some character trying to discredit an organisation that have consistently stated that they are a non-violent party.
It's about time we all woke up to the real treat posed by that sinister organisation Continuity Socialist Party. :confused:

Secret Squirrel
18-05-2011, 12:38 AM
One of my consonants is missing. Reward offered for safe return.
P.M me.

Secret Squirrel
18-05-2011, 03:30 AM
Image test.

Secret Squirrel
18-05-2011, 04:03 AM
image test

bolshevik
22-05-2011, 08:44 AM
The Socialist Party never joins any dissident republican protests on any issue.

Isn't that almost a crystal pure definition of sectarianism?

That is in the socialist sense of the term of refusing to take joint action with other forces because of their overall social programme irrespective of the political basis of any specific action.

Surely any decision on whether it is principled to participate in any demonstions against the Queen's visit should be made on the basis of an evaluation of the political slogans the demonstrations are being called under.rather than this sectarian blanket refusal to participate in demostrations merely because they are called by groups with a different view on the national question than the SP.

C. Flower
22-05-2011, 08:48 AM
Why not have a show of hands,

Who here,

1. Watched any footage of it be it live or news?
2. Read any articles on it in newspapers or mags?
3. Listened to any radio stations that discussed it at all?
4. Partcipated in any discussions online about it?

I can say 100% No to all,

Not one second of TV, radio, paper, or net from me.

Everyone?

You are discussing it here and now.

For the rest, I think that anyone on the left in Ireland should have paid close attention to this event, which is very significant politically, in the most reactionary way. If you have ingnored its content entirely, then you have missed a lot.

Will you be reading the thread here about the illegal suspension of civil rights during the visit ?

Jolly Red Giant
22-05-2011, 10:06 AM
Isn't that almost a crystal pure definition of sectarianism?

That is in the socialist sense of the term of refusing to take joint action with other forces because of their overall social programme irrespective of the political basis of any specific action.

Surely any decision on whether it is principled to participate in any demonstions against the Queen's visit should be made on the basis of an evaluation of the political slogans the demonstrations are being called under.rather than this sectarian blanket refusal to participate in demostrations merely because they are called by groups with a different view on the national question than the SP.

Three points -
1. I am sure 'dissident republicans' have turned up to protests that the Socialist Party have participated in - e.g. ICTU protests.

2. The 'dissident republicans' have never organised a single protest that does not have an undercurrent of sectarianism within it.

3. Political slogans are not the be all and end all of everything - it is crucial that an evaluation of political action and slogans be considered in conjunction with the political outlook and record of those organising the actions and drafting the slogans.

The Socialist Party has not and would not participate in any protest organised by 'dissident republicans' or any protest organised on a nationalist or republican basis.

The Socialist Party opposed/opposes the visits of Queen Lizzie and Obama, criticised the scandelous waste of public funds on policing the events and condemns the disgraceful repression of the civil liberties of the people of this country during the visits.

bolshevik
22-05-2011, 10:11 AM
The Socialist Party has not and would not participate in any protest organised by 'dissident republicans' or any protest organised on a nationalist or republican basis.

Does the SP include any protest organised by éirígí in this blanket abstentionism?

Holly
22-05-2011, 12:02 PM
Were the skinheads in Dorset Street members of a political party or only hooligans, I wonder.

scrawledincrayon
22-05-2011, 05:49 PM
Does the SP include any protest organised by éirígí in this blanket abstentionism?

I don't think that there's been a single protest organised by Eirigi under it's own name which the Socialist Party has ever supported. There have been protests organised by campaign groups which both Eirigi and the Socialist Party support.

As for your use of the term sectarianism, your premise is faulty. How to interact with republican splinter factions is a tactical issue, but no matter what position is taken it could be not be "sectarian" towards them in the political sense as they are not part of the workers movement.

C. Flower
22-05-2011, 05:51 PM
Were the skinheads in Dorset Street members of a political party or only hooligans, I wonder.

There seem to have been two separate demonstrations, one at the Dorset Street end and one at O'Connell Street (eírígí, I think).

There were also "freelancers" from the locality, by the sound of it.

C. Flower
22-05-2011, 05:55 PM
I don't think that there's been a single protest organised by Eirigi under it's own name which the Socialist Party has ever supported. There have been protests organised by campaign groups which both Eirigi and the Socialist Party support.

As for your use of the term sectarianism, your premise is faulty. How to interact with republican splinter factions is a tactical issue, but no matter what position is taken it could be not be "sectarian" towards them in the political sense as they are not part of the workers movement.

Marx took a very different stance towards the Fenians -

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1867/fenians.htm


Memorial of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association November 20, 1867;
Written: by Marx November 20, 1867.

To the Right Hon. Gathorne-Hardy,
Her Majesty's Secretary of State:

To the Right Hon. Gathorne-Hardy,

At a special meeting of the General Council of the IWA held at the office 16, Cable Street, East, W., on Wednesday evening the following memorial was adopted:

The memorial of the undersigned, representing workingmen's associations in all parts of Europe, showeth:

That the execution of the Irish prisoners condemned to death at Manchester will greatly impair the moral influence of England upon the European continent. The execution of the four prisoners resting upon the same evidence and the same verdict which, by the free pardon of Maguire, have been officially declared, the one false, the other erroneous, will bear the stamp not of a judicial act, but of political revenge. But even if the verdict of the Manchester jury and the evidence it rests upon had not been tainted by the British Government itself, the latter would now have to choose between the bloody-handed practices of old Europe and the magnanimous humanity of the young Transatlantic Republic.

The commutation of the sentence for which we pray will be an act not only of justice, but of political wisdom.
JOHN WESTON, Chairman
EUGENE DUPONT, secretary for France
HERMANN JUNG, secretary for Switzerland
ANTON ZABICKI, secretary for Poland
ALEXANDRE BESSON, secretary for Belgium
ROBERT SHAW, secretary for America,
KARL MARX, secretary for Germany
PAUL LAFARGUE, secretary for Spain
DERKINDEREN, secretary for Holland
J. GEORGE ECCARIUS, general secretary

Note from MECW

In the autumn of 1867 the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association launched a widespread campaign among the English workers in support of the Irish national liberation movement led by the Fenians. The memorial written by, Marx was an integral part of this campaign.

The Fenians were Irish revolutionaries who named themselves after the “Féne” — a name of the ancient population of Ireland. Their first organisations appeared in the 1850s in the USA among the Irish immigrants and later in Ireland itself. The secret Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, as the organisation was known in the early 1860s, aimed at establishing an independent Irish republic by means of an armed uprising. The Fenians, who expressed the interests of the Irish peasantry, came chiefly from the urban petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia and believed in conspiracy tactics. The British Government attempted to suppress the Fenian movement by severe police reprisals.

On September 18, 1867, the Fenians made an armed attack on a prison van in an attempt to liberate Kelly and Deasy, two of their leaders. The latter managed to escape but a policeman was killed during the clash. Five Irishmen (Maguire, Condon, Larkin, Allen and O'Brien) were charged with murder and brought to trial. Although there was no direct evidence, they were sentenced to death. Maguire was subsequently pardoned, and Condon, as an American citizen, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment. The others were executed.

The Fenian trial in Manchester aroused a storm of protest in Ireland and England. On the insistence of Marx, the General Council of the International began, on November 19, a discussion on the Irish question during which the leaders of the international proletarian organisation expressed their solidarity with the struggle of the Irish people for independence and condemned the position of the reformist trade union leaders who, in the wake of the English bourgeois radicals, denied the right of the Fenians to resort to revolutionary methods in the struggle. The discussion was scheduled to continue on November 26, but when the news of the conviction was received, the General Council convened a special meeting on November 20 and addressed a memorial to the Home Secretary, asking for the commutation of the death sentence. The British Government ignored the memorial.

Because of opposition from the trade union leaders, the English labour press did not publish the memorial in its original wording. A report on the special meeting of the General Council, published in The Bee-Hive, No. 319, November 23, 1867, only summarised it, and trained the General Council members who had signed it. The French translation was published by Le Courrier français, No. 163, November 24.

In English the memorial was first published in full in The General Council of the First International. 1866-1868, Moscow, 1964.

Jolly Red Giant
22-05-2011, 06:38 PM
Marx took a very different stance towards the Fenians -

With all due respect - the Ireland that Marx was talking about in 1867 and the Ireland that exists in 2011 are two completely different political animals.

Attempting to transplant one article from Marx over 140 years ago into present day Ireland goes utter, totally and completely against the method of Marxism.

bolshevik
22-05-2011, 07:31 PM
I don't think that there's been a single protest organised by Eirigi under it's own name which the Socialist Party has ever supported. There have been protests organised by campaign groups which both Eirigi and the Socialist Party support.

As for your use of the term sectarianism, your premise is faulty. How to interact with republican splinter factions is a tactical issue, but no matter what position is taken it could be not be "sectarian" towards them in the political sense as they are not part of the workers movement.

I've read the éirígí programme and it quite clearly is an example of an organisation that is part of the workers' movement, no matter what differences you or I may have with their approach to the national question.

On what basis are you placing éirígí outside the workers' movement?

scrawledincrayon
22-05-2011, 07:54 PM
On what basis are you placing éirígí outside the workers' movement?

On the basis that Republicanism, whether "left" or "right", is a petit-bourgeois ideology. Groups like Eirigi are more correctly part of the nationalist movement than the workers movement.

bolshevik
22-05-2011, 08:37 PM
On the basis that Republicanism, whether "left" or "right", is a petit-bourgeois ideology. Groups like Eirigi are more correctly part of the nationalist movement than the workers movement.

Got to say this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

The reason most nationalist groups are not part of the workers' movement is because their programmes involve, with varying degrees of explicitness, cross-class alliances for the creation of a capitalist united Ireland. As per the IRSP.

But I fail to see how this applies to an organisation with this programme -
http://www.eirigi.org/pdfs/socialism.pdf - which clearly places éirígí within the framework of the workers' movement, and even within its subjectively revolutionary socialist wing.

Or do you have evidence that this is a fake programme and they actually share the cross-class approach of nationalism?

C. Flower
22-05-2011, 08:51 PM
With all due respect - the Ireland that Marx was talking about in 1867 and the Ireland that exists in 2011 are two completely different political animals.

Attempting to transplant one article from Marx over 140 years ago into present day Ireland goes utter, totally and completely against the method of Marxism.

That would be a good argument for saying that Marx is completely irrelevant today.

However, I don't agree with you at all on this. Marx was very acutely aware of the limitations of nationalism in his own era. What has changed about Imperialism in the last 140 years and in what respect is Ireland "a different political animal" ? Does the SP give conditional support to any liberation movements ? For example, the Palestinians ?

Jolly Red Giant
22-05-2011, 09:23 PM
That would be a good argument for saying that Marx is completely irrelevant today.
No it would not - I'll tell you what - I had this issue about Marx and the Fenians and Lenin and 1916 out with merle over on the other forum some time ago - this is the post that I made - knock yourself out.


Does the SP give conditional support to any liberation movements ? For example, the Palestinians ?
The Socialist Party supports the rights of all peoples to self-determination. The Socialist Party does not support nationalist movements.

Post on Marx etc. -

Did Marx support the Fenians?

Yes Marx supported the Fenian movement and the Fenian uprising. The question to be address is not whether he supported the Fenians, but why?

The writings of Marx show that he changed his position on Ireland on several occasions as his understanding of the national question matured and as the material circumstances changed. Let’s let Marx speak for himself on this issue –

I used to think the separation of Ireland from England impossible.
Here Marx clearly admits that at one point he felt that Irish independence was impossible. However, as he considered the situation more deeply over time he came to the following conclusion –

I now think it inevitable

So from originally regarding it as impossible, his view was that it became inevitable. However, while he regarded it as inevitable he did add a qualification –

although after the separation there may come federation.
Now in addressing the issue of Irish separation from England, Marx was dealing with how to develop society on a capitalist basis in order to change the material conditions on the ground and alter the class basis of Irish society from a rural peasant based society to and urban proletarian based society. He added that what the Irish needed was Home Rule and independence of Britain, an agrarian revolution and tariffs against Britain. Marx was arguing for the need for an agrarian revolution to shift the class nature of rural society from peasantry to small farmers in order to facilitate agricultural reform and expansion of agricultural production. This was necessary to foster the creation of a powerful bourgeois class, the alteration of the material basis of society, the development of industry and consequently a proletariat.

Engels wrote on the attitude adopted by Marx –

At first Marx thought that Ireland would not be liberated by the national movement of the oppressed nation, but by the working-class movement of the oppressor nation. Marx did not make an Absolute of the national movement, knowing, as he did, that only the victory of the working class can bring about the complete liberation of all nationalities. It is impossible to estimate beforehand all the possible relations between the bourgeois liberation movements of the oppressed nations and the proletarian emancipation movement of the oppressor nation

As Engels demonstrated here Marx did not have any illusions in the national liberation movement, but understood that it was solely by victory of the workers movement that national liberation could be completely achieved.

Lenin also considered the developments occurring at this time and spoke of the changing outlook adopted by Marx. –

the English working class fell under the influence of the liberals for a fairly long time, became an appendage to the liberals, and by adopting a liberal-labour policy left itself leaderless. The bourgeois liberation movement in Ireland grew stronger and assumed revolutionary forms. Marx reconsidered his view and corrected it.

The impact of Liberal policies on the British working class forced a re-think on the part of Marx towards the Irish question, leading to him advocating the ‘separation’ from Britain as outlined above. Lenin continues –

What were the theoretical grounds for Marx’s conclusion? In England the bourgeois revolution had been consummated long ago. But it had not yet been consummated in Ireland; it is being consummated only now, after the lapse of half a century, by the reforms of the English Liberals. If capitalism had been overthrown in England as quickly as Marx had at first expected, there would have been no room for a bourgeois-democratic and general national movement in Ireland. But since it had arisen, Marx advised the English workers to support it, give it a revolutionary impetus and see it through in the interests of their own liberty.
The economic ties between Ireland and England in the 1860s were of course, even closer than Russia’s present ties with Poland, the Ukraine, etc. The “unpracticality” and “impracticability” of the separation of Ireland (if only owing to geographical conditions and England’s immense colonial power) were quite obvious. Though, in principle, an enemy of federalism, Marx in this instance granted the possibility of federation, as well, if only the emancipation of Ireland was achieved in a revolutionary, not reformist way, through a movement of the mass of the people of Ireland supported by the working class of England. There can be no doubt that only such a solution of the historical problem would have been in the best interests of the proletariat and most conducive to rapid social progress.

What must be kept in mind at all times when looking at the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin in relation to the Irish question in the nineteenth century is that because of the nature of Irish society Marx regarded it as an absolute necessity for a bourgeois revolution in Ireland, that would bring about an agrarian revolution with the creation of a class of small landowners as distinct from peasantry, impose tariffs and develop industry thereby creating a working class capable of achieving a socialist revolution, while at all times recognizing that complete national liberation could only be achieved by a successful socialist revolution. It was on this basis that Marx supported the Fenians. His intention was to support a bourgeois national liberation movement, with all its limitations, in opposition to domination by Britain (and the impact this was having on the British working class) in order to create the material conditions for socialist revolution which in consequence would deliver complete national liberation that the native bourgeois class would be incapable of delivering for Ireland.

Engels also addressed the relationship between the Irish emigrants and British workers and how it impacted on the attitude of the British working class towards national liberation in Ireland. The British capitalist class consciously used Irish peasant immigrants to undermine the wages, conditions and union organisation of British workers. In much the same way that the Irish landless labourers attacked itinerant landless labourers that ventured into their locality, British workers reacted against the influx (of several hundred thousand) Irish immigrant workers. Engels spoke of –
the hatred towards the Irish found among the English workers borne from the material conditions of the time and the influence and impact of the liberal-labour policies in existence.

Lenin considered the support offered by Marx and Engels to the liberation movement of the nineteenth century –
Both the Irish people and the English proletariat proved weak… Does it follow that Marx and Engels were “utopians”, that they put forward “impracticable” national demands, or that they allowed themselves to be influenced by the Irish petty-bourgeois nationalists (for there is no doubt about the petty-bourgeois nature of the Fenian movement), etc.?

No. In the Irish question, too, Marx and Engels pursued a consistently proletarian policy, which really educated the masses in a spirit of democracy and socialism. Only such a policy could have saved both Ireland and England half a century of delay in introducing the necessary reforms, and prevented these reforms from being mutilated by the Liberals to please the reactionaries. Note that Lenin refers to a ‘consistently proletarian policy’. The objective for Marx and Engels at all times was not simply the right of self-determination but what was in the material interests of the proletariat. If a bourgeois national liberation movement was unnecessary for the development of a working class then Marx and Engels would have rejected its necessity out of hand and moved to propagandise on the basis of socialist revolution.

So taking the basis on which Marx supported the Fenian movement (a bourgeois nationalist movement he hoped would bring about a limited bourgeois revolution in Ireland leading to the creation of a proletariat) can Marx’s support for the Fenians be automatically extended to the 1916 Rising and the national liberation movement of 1919-1922?

Anyone with any understanding of Marxism knows that this is not the case and is not possible. As Marx demonstrated himself by altering his position himself in the light of a better understanding and of changing circumstances each movement has to be addressed on its own merits, using the method of Marxism and understanding the material basis on which the movement is taking place. Lenin continues –
The policy of Marx and Engels on the Irish question serves as a splendid example of the attitude the proletariat of the oppressor nations should adopt towards national movements, an example which has lost none of its immense practical importance. Note here that Lenin Is talking about the method adopted by Marx, not simply the arguments put forward at a particular time and under particular conditions.

Jolly Red Giant
22-05-2011, 09:24 PM
Part 2

Merle has made much play of the position adopted by Lenin in relation to the 1916 Easter Rising. I will address that shortly but first it is necessary to go back a few years to look at Lenin’s comments on the 1913 lock-out.
In Dublin, the capital of Ireland…the class struggle, which permeates the whole life of capitalist society everywhere, has become accentuated to the point of class war… What has happened? How could such a war have flared up in a peaceable, cultured, civilised free state? Lenin of course is being facetious, but is clearly demonstrating that a class war was underway in Dublin in 1913 and it is necessary to see how this situation had developed since the time of the Fenian rising and what impact it would have on the political outlook for national liberation and socialist revolution.

Lenin states -
National oppression and Catholic reaction have turned the proletarians of this unhappy country into paupers, the peasants into toilworn, ignorant and dull slaves of the priesthood, and the bourgeoisie into a phalanx, masked by nationalist phrases, of capitalists, of despots over the workers; finally, the administration has been turned into a gang accustomed to every kind of violence.
At the present moment the Irish nationalists (i.e., the Irish bourgeoisie) are the victors. They are buying up the lands of the English landlords; they are getting national self-government (the famous Home Rule for which such a long and stubborn struggle has been going on between Ire land and England); they will freely govern “their own” country jointly with “their own” Irish priests.
Well, this Irish nationalist bourgeoisie is celebrating its “national” victory, its maturity in “affairs of state” by declaring a war to the death on the Irish labour movement. In this quote Lenin is outlining the changing nature of the Irish bourgeoisie and how it has affected their political outlook.

Lenin is scathing of the native bourgeois class and the attitude they have adopted to Irish workers, demonstrating their inability to recognise and carry out their historical role. It is this inability of the native bourgeoisie that has altered the material basis in Ireland for a national liberation movement.

Talking about the emergence of the Irish trade union movement onto the center stage of the historical process Lenin states –
And these unions have begun to develop magnificently. The Irish proletariat, awakening to class-consciousness, is pressing the Irish bourgeois scoundrels engaged in celebrating their “national” victory… A new spirit bas been aroused in the Irish workers’ unions. The unskilled workers have brought unparalleled animation into the trade unions. Even the women have begun to organise—a thing hitherto unknown in Catholic Ireland. So far as organisation of the workers is concerned Dublin looks like becoming one of the foremost towns in the whole of Great Britain. The country that used to be typified by the fat, well-fed Catholic priest and the poor, starving, ragged worker who wore his rags even on Sunday because he could riot afford Sunday clothes, that country, though it bears a double and triple national yoke, has begun to turn into a country with an organised army of the proletariat. Lenin is stating that the Irish proletariat now has the material ability to concretely influence the political direction of any movement that would take place. It is centre stage in the political battle between coloniser and colonised, between bourgeois and proletariat, between capitalism and socialism. To confirm Lenin outlines the changed nature of Irish rural society –
We would arrive at the state of affairs which exists in Ireland, where the present peasant reform was required, which is turning the tenant farmers into small owners. Lenin understood and outlined how the nature of Irish rural society had changed rapidly in a very short space of time thereby fundamentally altering the basis for Marx’s support for the Fenians. In other words the basis on which Marx argued for the support of socialists for the Fenian movement was no longer valid, the new situation needed to be analysed using the method of Marxism and a new attitude adopted based on the changed circumstances.

How did Lenin view the impact of the 1913 lock-out? –
The Dublin events mark a turning-point in the history of the labour movement and of socialism in Ireland. Murphy has threatened to destroy the Irish trade unions. He has succeeded only in destroying the last remnants of the influence of the Irish nationalist bourgeoisie over, the Irish proletariat. He has helped to steel the independent revolutionary working-class movement in Ireland, which is free of nationalist prejudices. Lenin is unequivocal, the Irish labour movement has emerged on a new plane, it has found its feet and it has achieved its independence from the nationalist bourgeoisie.

So how does this equate with the claim by merle about Lenin’s intent when he wrote about the Easter Rising? On what basis was Lenin criticising those who claimed the Rising was a ‘putsch’? Lenin was criticising those who he claimed were arguing that
the Irish question was an agrarian one, the peasants had been pacified by reforms, and the nationalist movement remained only a purely urban, petty-bourgeois movement, which, notwithstanding the sensation it caused, had not much social backing.... In other words Lenin was demonstrating that those who declared the Rising to be a putsch lacked the understanding of the changed nature of Irish society and the material basis for revolution. He argued that they ignored the development of the proletariat in Ireland and the class consciousness developed over the previous years which culminated in the 1913 lock-out.

Merle likes to quote the following –
Whoever calls such a rebellion a putsch is either a hardened reactionary, or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of envisaging a social revolution as a living phenomenon But the question to be asked is the following – what is Lenin referring to here? Is it support for the Rising on the same basis as the support for the Fenians afforded by Marx? Clearly he is not. Lenin is specifically addressing the issue of the nature of revolutionary upheaval. He is not specifically talking about the 1916 Rising but using it as an example in his polemic against those who do not understand the nature of revolutionary upheaval. Lenin is clearly demonstrating something that all conscious Marxists are aware of – the fact that any revolutionary movement involves
revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semiproletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc What merle does not take into consideration when he quotes from Lenin’s writings is that while all of these elements are involved, the key component is the class conscious proletariat that has drawn revolutionary conclusions. To demonstrate this Lenin states –
The socialist revolution in Europe cannot be anything other than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and sundry oppressed and discontented elements. Inevitably, sections of the petty bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will participate in it—without such participation, mass struggle is impossible, without it no revolution is possible—and just as inevitably will they bring into the movement their prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their weaknesses and errors.

But objectively they will attack capital, and the class- conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing this objective truth of a variegated and discordant, motley and outwardly fragmented, mass struggle, will be able to unite and direct it, capture power, seize the banks, expropriate the trusts which all hate (though for different reasons!), and introduce other dictatorial measures which in their totality will amount to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism, which, however, will by no means immediately purge itself of petty bourgeois slag. Note the role that Lenin places on the ‘class conscious vanguard of the revolution’.

Merle has criticized my comments stating that the Easter Rising from the perspective of the left was an error in judgement. Let’s look at what Lenin’s assessment was of the situation –
It is the misfortune of the Irish that they rose prematurely, before the European revolt of the proletariat had had time to mature. Clearly Lenin regarded the Easter Rising as premature, an error in political judgement, one that was made for understandable reasons but one with the benefit of hindsight that can be clearly seen. Lenin’s basis for supporting the Rising (the same as all Marxists) was the following –
the very fact that revolts do break out at different times, in different places, and are of different kinds, guarantees wide scope and depth to the general movement; but it is only in premature, individual, sporadic and therefore unsuccessful, revolutionary movements that the masses gain experience, acquire knowledge, gather strength, and get to know their real leaders, the socialist proletarians, and in this way prepare for the general onslaught, just as certain strikes, demonstrations, local and national, mutinies in the army, outbreaks among the peasantry, etc., prepared the way for the general onslaught in 1905. The key issue for Lenin in relation to the Easter Rising was the lessons to be learnt and the experience gained from a class perspective. The same situation developed during the period from 1917-1922 in Ireland whereby the national rebellion took on a wide and varied character, involving different and often conflicting sections of society. The concrete difference from 1916 was the lessons learnt by the most conscious layers within the workers movement. The reality that the material conditions that existed in Ireland from 1917 onwards had fundamentally altered. While the national liberation movement needed to be supported, the attitude of the advanced workers (leaning on the experience of the lock-out and the shafting of the Easter Rising by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements) dictated that the workers movement would need to operate on an independent basis, that it must strive to supplant the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements and take the leadership of the movement into the hands of the working class, not to achieve independence for Ireland but for the working class.


Merle has consistently argued that the leaders of the labour movement in Ireland failed the Irish working class. To start with the real leaders of the labour movement were not those who sat in their offices in Liberty Hall. The real leaders, the conscious Marxist elements were the industrial organisers who work shoulder to shoulder on a day to day basis, trying to develop political consciousness while fighting to improve the material conditions of the workers they represented. I would argue that these leaders stood head and shoulders above the leaders of any other movement in Ireland during this period. If you consider the nationalist movement what do you get – the compromising of Redmond and his brown-nosing of British Imperialism in 1914. MacNeill and others canceling the orders for the insurrection in 1916. Collins, Griffiths and DeValera caving into British Imperialism, then arguing over whether to swear an oath to the King and plunging the country into civil war (and yes I know it wasn’t as simple as that). And in modern times Adams and McGuinness compromising with Imperialism and hopping into bed with unionism. The reality throughout the entire twentieth century is that the leadership that has failed has not been the leadership of the labour movement (despite its weaknesses) it has been the leadership of the nationalist movement. Despite ample opportunity the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leadership of nationalism has compromised with Imperialism. And the reality is that this is inevitable. Lenin pointed it out when he discussed the 1913 lock-out. The native bourgeois class in Ireland arrived on the scene of history too late to carry out its historical tasks, it is incapable of ever being able to complete those tasks and the completion of those tasks – complete national liberation, as Marx outlined, can only be achieved by victory for the working class.

Jolly Red Giant
22-05-2011, 09:25 PM
Part 3

I would also like to address the issue of the rights of nations to self determination, something merle makes big play of, regularly referring to Lenin and Connolly, and something that he uses to justify the paramilitary campaign of the Provos prior to the ceasefire.

Let’s see what Lenin said about the role of the workers movement and the right to self-determination –
The socialist revolution is not one single act, not one single battle on a single front; but a whole epoch of intensified class conflicts, a long series of battles on all fronts, i.e., battles around all the problems of economics and politics, which can culminate only in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure, or overshadow it, etc. On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces complete democracy, so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy.

If would be no less mistaken to delete any of the points of the democratic programme, for example, the point of self-determination of nations, on the ground that it is “infeasible,” or that it is “illusory” under imperialism. The assertion that the right of nations to self-determination cannot be achieved within the framework of capitalism may be understood either in its absolute, economic sense, or in the conventional, political sense. Regularly sectarians on the left will use quotations like this one to attack the position of the Socialist Party to the national question and its opposition to the paramilitary campaign of the Provos. Somehow in their minds opposition to individual terror equates to support for imperialism. But what was the attitude of Lenin –
The Socialists of the oppressed nations, on the other hand, must particularly fight for and maintain complete, absolute unity (also organizational) between the workers of the oppressed nation and the workers of the oppressing nation. Without such unity it will be impossible to maintain an independent proletarian policy and class solidarity with the proletariat of other countries in the face of all the subterfuge, treachery and trickery of the bourgeoisie; for the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations always converts the slogan of national liberation into a means for deceiving the workers So here Lenin clearly outlines the necessity for international class unity between the workers of the oppressed nation and the workers of the oppressing nation. He outlines that the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation uses the slogan of ‘national liberation’ to trick workers. The Socialist Party have consistently argued that support for the national liberation movement of the Provos led by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements are a blind ally for the working class and that the key to achieving the liberation of the working class (and as a result national liberation) is dependent on the unity of the working class Catholic and Protestant, North and South, here and internationally.

The IRA constantly refer to Connolly’s participation in the 1916 Rising as justification for their campaign of individual terror. Yet Lenin was implacably opposed to individual terror, refusing to follow in the footsteps of his brother, instead dedicating himself to building a revolutionary party. The IRA for decades have invoked the image of Connolly. Yet did Connolly ever engage in acts of individual terror?. Connolly organized the ICA for the defence of the workers movement. Despite the fact that he had ample means and opportunity to do so between 1914-1916 (when it could have actually been carried out with some possible justification) he didn’t carry out any bombings, shootings or assassinations. Instead he chose to participate in an insurrection. His motivation was to attempt to provide a spark for a revolutionary upheaval on an international (not solely national) basis and unfortunately he was unable to play a leading role (which he would undoubtedly he would have done) in the mushrooming workers movement from 1917 onwards

The material conditions of Ireland between 1867 and 1913 were altered fundamentally as outlined by Lenin and have fundamentally altered again since 1913. The tactics and methods of Marxists must adapt to the prevailing material conditions, while always maintaining the over-riding necessity of workers unity as vital for developing a socialist revolution.

C. Flower
23-05-2011, 09:14 AM
I would have loved to have read what Lenin or Marx would have said about the banning of the Irish flag from the streets of Dublin for the visit of QE2 last week.

I'm familliar with most of the texts you've quoted, but on this site we encourage posting of links so that the context of extracts can be understood. If you have time to add them, it would be most appreciated.


If capitalism had been overthrown in England as quickly as Marx had at first expected, there would have been no room for a bourgeois-democratic and general national movement in Ireland. But since it had arisen, Marx advised the English workers to support it, give it a revolutionary impetus and see it through in the interests of their own liberty.

I'll come back to your interpretation of this, and other passages quoted, when I can give your postings the time they deserve. But I would like to point out that Merle Haggard is not a socialist or Marxist, nor part of any left opposition, sectarian or otherwise, to SP policy on Ireland, so his positions are a bit of a "straw man" in the context of this thread.

Marx of course did not advocate individual terror, but was an energetic defender of the Fenians, who had used it.

Material conditions have changed, in particular, economic globalisation, US inward investment and the EU are significant changes, but the role and presence of Britain in this island remains. Do you think that this presence is benign, or remains colonial/imperialistic ?

bolshevik
23-05-2011, 09:31 PM
The reason most nationalist groups are not part of the workers' movement is because their programmes involve, with varying degrees of explicitness, cross-class alliances for the creation of a capitalist united Ireland. As per the IRSP.

But I fail to see how this applies to an organisation with this programme -
http://www.eirigi.org/pdfs/socialism.pdf - which clearly places éirígí within the framework of the workers' movement, and even within its subjectively revolutionary socialist wing.

Or do you have evidence that this is a fake programme and they actually share the cross-class approach of nationalism?

Anyone from the SP going to even attempt to answer this?

C. Flower
23-05-2011, 11:19 PM
From Andrew Flood of the WSM -
http://wsm.ie/c/queen-dublin-castle-banquet-garda-harass


The Dublin castle banquet was where the Irish and British elites were meeting up to symbolically bury the hatchet in the interests of a common program of ******** the working class of both islands. Much of the visit has been built around 'moving on' from the colonial relationship that has dominated history between the islands. The WSM banner emphasized that aspect of the visit proclaiming "Old Ruler, New Rulers: Class War Continues.." Unfortunately as has been the case since the crisis began the Class War is coming almost completely from their side, the tiny size of the protests during the visit underlining this fact.


Image:The Old Ruler, New Rulers Class War Continues..
banner being prepared the evening before the protest

The visit itself has proved a huge PR coup for the 'normalization of relations' between the ruling elites with an ever obedient media very successfully establishing the idea that anyone protesting must be a backward looking 'terrorist' neanderthal. Virtually no civil rights voices have dared protest the repressive policing operation and last nights operation included, we think for the first time, the importation of the 'controversial 'Kettling' tactic from the London police. This is where a section of a crowd is surrounded in a square of police and people are not allowed leave that square for hours. A second smaller demonstration organised by the 32 Country Sovereignty Movement in the same area was kettled for several hours after some fireworks were let off. Media reports which claimed that elements of that group of protesters threw "bottles, firewords and rubbish" indicated that Garda also drew batons and there were at least eight arrests. However the eight were released this morning without being charged despite being held overnight.

In most countries you would expect the liberal end of the legal establishment to not only protest such abuse of police powers but to actively send legal observers to demonstrations where such abuse is likely. In Ireland this almost never happens, allowing Garda to operate with considerable impunity. The confidence shown by the Garda in abusing their powers over the last few days suggests they have been assured by their superiors that they need not fear repercussions providing they don't go 'too far.' This continues the pattern now long established in the policing of the Shell's Corrib project in Rossport where there has been repeated violence from the Garda towards protesters.

The Garda repression is of course part of that story for the low numbers protesting but it is not a complete explanation, there was probably more overt repression in the run up to the Mayday 2004 EU Summit protests. But that resulted in greater numbers turning out with as many as 5,000 taking part in the main banned demonstration organised by the libertarian Dublin Grassroots Network. Counting both demonstrations there were no more than 400 on the streets last night and perhaps as few as 300. The aftermath of the royal visit should be a time for some frank discussion as to why no one outside of fringe republican circles and a handful from the equally fringe far left took part in the protests.

WORDS & IMAGES: Andrew Flood

scrawledincrayon
24-05-2011, 04:27 AM
Anyone from the SP going to even attempt to answer this?

Some strands of republican have regularly adopted socialist language and concepts. It has rarely had much effect on their practice. Eirigi are a split from Sinn Fein which spent much of its first period of existence delivering copies of the 1916 proclamation door to door. At present, they are mostly of significance in the North, where they position themselves as more stridently nationalist and communalist critics of Sinn Fein.

What they say on Sundays is not of any interest.

bolshevik
24-05-2011, 12:48 PM
Some strands of republican have regularly adopted socialist language and concepts. It has rarely had much effect on their practice. Eirigi are a split from Sinn Fein which spent much of its first period of existence delivering copies of the 1916 proclamation door to door. At present, they are mostly of significance in the North, where they position themselves as more stridently nationalist and communalist critics of Sinn Fein.

What they say on Sundays is not of any interest.

Thanks for the info. I've had virtually no direct contact with them as they effectively don't exist in Cork.

I can't help noting that this "what they say on Sundays is not of any interest" might also apply to the revolutionary credentials of the SP as the Monday to Saturday reality of the programme the SP present to the working class is just a radical left-reformist version of socialism.