Radical Politics - What are you all so scared of?

[riposte]

Radical politics have come in for a lot of criticism recently from all sections of society including both the left and the right from where they see it as being somewhat too grandiose and idea and the very people who think radically are attached with some sort of stigma that follows them for being involved in radical politics. The left seem to believe that we are selling out our sovereignty and the right has come to the conclusion that such right politics are the preserve of loony lefties intent on some sort of anarchy to disrupt society, the centre remains indifferent and will do whatever gets them votes. Republicanism seems to have a chip on its shoulder with radical politics and this comes as surprising seen as the radicalism that has come out of Republicanism with its violent past. Republicanism was radical at one stage and has since run out of fuel .

Radicalism offers a solution to the problems we are facing and by looking at the other philosophies in place we can look at the perhaps the best ideaologies and what applications these may have to providing a radical solution to the future we are faced with.

Communitarianism is a dirty word in the circles of radical politics. Often it is associated with authoritarian regimes however some of the principles it guarantees are basic rights that we should enshrine in good old Bunreacht na H-Eireann such as access to healthcare, education but most importantly the right to work . Jobs have been seen to be a privilege, how often has it been heard by the dog on the street that “You’re lucky to have a job” as if it some reward. Communitarianism is built on the basis that communities should mould the individual which then pushes the common good for all concerned. Ireland at the moment is experiencing something of a crass indivudualisation with a heavy dollop of materialism that is creating no social movement and breathing apathy. The comparison with authoritarianism is idiotic In the extreme as authoritarinsim is accompanied by use of violence to co-erce a people into a way of thinking or subduing them as is being done by the democratically elected government of Greece. Working together as a community ensures that we all benefit and working together casts of the shackles of capitalism to ensure a fair world. This is done through the use of community projects or solidarity as exemplified by the Campaign Against Household Waste or other similar movements that galvinise a community together in the face of financial oppression.

Through Progressivism we can achieve a more democratic orientaited society that is built by the people for the people. Too often we are left with the faceless bureaucrats or politicians lining their own pockets for their own benefits,we need a system which will benefit us , the people to empower ourselves and take back the structures of society back so that we can run things as a collective society. A lot of progressives made great inroads in the inner city deprived areas of Chicago where welfare reforms were set up and social workers and properly trained people were put in place to address the issues that they were faced with. These included back to work programmes, back to education programmes and the creation of a programme where children were guaranteed at least one meal a day . Labour laws which were very anti child were reformed to ensure that those whom were the most vunerable in society were changed so that they got an education and matured so they could benefit importantly themselves and then secondly society as a whole. Following on from this there was more of an empowerment of unions which worked for the people as in complete contrast to now where they are agents of the bourgoise and work for no one but themselves.

Finally the one thing we need to do to effect change is anarcho-pacifism and a revolution. Anrchopacifism is the use of non violent means in order to achieve this as so used by Ghandi to great effect. Mass strikes, boycotts, cyber anarchy , actually anything that disrupts society . This needs to coincide with a revolution in the way we think. We need to revolutionise the the thinking of the proletariat in this country to crack the corridors of power that are in existence. Seems awfully romantic how it is phrased but it’s the truth.

Radicalism is not a dirty word, it’s a way of thinking. Don’t be scared by it, think outside the box….

You do ask some silly questions Fluffy.

[Apjp]

That's cause he is living in some dream land where republicanism is the step to his fantasy utopia of a daisy chains and weed style political union, where the whole world lives in la la land.

[fluffybiscuits]

That's cause he is living in some dream land where republicanism is the step to his fantasy utopia of a daisy chains and weed style political union, where the whole world lives in la la land.

Are you so numb with the state of the country that any sort of imaginations and dreams have collapsed? Try coming up wiht some sort of positivity instead of wallowing in some pit of despair. If the whole of Ireland dreamed of a better Ireland imagine what we could do....

You do ask some silly questions Fluffy.

Is that all you are going to say riposte!!

[fluffybiscuits]

I'm not scared. I'm looking forward to it and hoping for it. I have a list. I'm just worried that the top name on it dies of natural causes or someone else gets there before I do.

Capn I never believed for one moment you would be afraid of it!

Nothing wrong to be radical as it's antidote to a real change if necessary. sometimes it can be for the good or bad for this country.

I found out that my ex-university don't like it when i tell the truth and exposed their practices (it was money that they were really interested in). It can be said in the same fashion re our government whose constant spin and lies re debt deal. Shame on them re pensions worth 36M. Their debt deal lies in tatters as Schuable has rejected it out of hand until 2014, which could only mean further and further austerity with MASSIVE take out of our economy. It's a dangerous signal to spiral downwards with nil chance of recovery to the bottom with the threat of deflation.(which is a worry there).

Key is to continue expose their lies and bad practices constantly until blue in the face as it would register/embedded in our public consciousness.
It's also a high time to cut out all the traitors loose such as Kenny/Cowen/Gimme more/Hogan (bully boy and guardian of Kenny)/ Noonan unless we acts violently like the Greek people out there whom i share my solidarity with them.

As was seen in Greece there is radical thinking mixed with some anarchanistic views which are taking effect. Golden Dawn are seeing themselves kicked to touch and the country is being brought to a standstill. This is happening more with the wake of the La Garde list. We showed James Reilly to be not being clear on the issue of PCC's, nursing home ownership etc. We need to show more and get the people worked up into a frenzy of sorts.

Gandhi wasn't an anarchopacifist (not that there is such a thing, that doesn't defy simple logic), he was a muppet beloved by the British establishment. If a real revolution wasn't going on all around him at the time, the British would have shot him very early on for being an annoying little git who had a stomach churning habit of sleeping naked with young girls.

Clapping and singing songs is neither the act of a revolutionary nor an act of revolution. It is an act of declaring defeat before the fighting even begins.

There is such a thing. The use of non violent action in order to achieve aims. If Ghandi was a part of the British establishment then why is he held in high esteem in India? Clapping and singing songs is not revolutionary but inspiring people is....

I doubt you'll find anyone here afraid of much, never mind them being afraid of radical change.

The problem is the population at large are very happy with their iPhones and consumer lifestyles. You'll only get your Anarchopacifism when the "bailout" money runs out. It'll be too late by then, but if people become ungovernable which in a casual way is a distinct possibility ( non-payment of household charge, etc ), then something will have to give.

Its true though, there is too much individualism...

[Apjp]

Are you so numb with the state of the country that any sort of imaginations and dreams have collapsed? Try coming up wiht some sort of positivity instead of wallowing in some pit of despair. If the whole of Ireland dreamed of a better Ireland imagine what we could do....




Is that all you are going to say riposte!!

Fluffy, in the alternative universe where the Irish people do not want to be a colonized people, and if that day somehow ever arrives on said conservative colonised populace, what makes you think they would dream of joining another political union? Because the day radicalism is forced upon people here, which is a slim possibility given the Greek style wage devaluation ahead, will make Athens look like a piss in the wind. Irish people will never get radical unless they are forced to do so, which as a last act of desperation, they may well be.

If that happens, I would not imagine such a turbulent Ireland seeking to join a disastrous political union(like the utopian one you want) for the 3rd time in our recent history. We might try things on our own for a while-and the day the shyte hits the fan is the day I'll be back here arguing for complete secession from a union that for the last 20 years has subverted all our basic and ultimate freedoms. And political unionists in such a scenario wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

Here's hoping the place is like Argentina after the next few budgets. We owe it to ourselves to oppose conventional truths that rape and pillage our society, and political and monetary union is the essence of all our current problems.

[fluffybiscuits]

Fluffy, in the alternative universe where the Irish people do not want to be a colonized people, and if that day somehow ever arrives on said conservative colonised populace, what makes you think they would dream of joining another political union? Because the day radicalism is forced upon people here, which is a slim possibility given the Greek style wage devaluation ahead, will make Athens look like a piss in the wind. Irish people will never get radical unless they are forced to do so, which as a last act of desperation, they may well be.

If that happens, I would not imagine such a turbulent Ireland seeking to join a disastrous political union(like the utopian one you want) for the 3rd time in our recent history. We might try things on our own for a while-and the day the shyte hits the fan is the day I'll be back here arguing for complete secession from a union that for the last 20 years has subverted all our basic and ultimate freedoms. And political unionists in such a scenario wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

Here's hoping the place is like Argentina after the next few budgets. We owe it to ourselves to oppose conventional truths that rape and pillage our society, and political and monetary union is the essence of all our current problems.

The idea of a United Socialist Union of States is not the only solution but it is the solution I see ahead. Argentina is on the up and up ever since the devaluation of the Peso. They insitgated one brilliant idea which could be here in a matter of time. Companies that closed and where staff were owed money were given the company and a co-op formed, this is thinking outside the box.

Nice to see you are at least being radical now

[Apjp]

The idea of a United Socialist Union of States is not the only solution but it is the solution I see ahead. Argentina is on the up and up ever since the devaluation of the Peso. They insitgated one brilliant idea which could be here in a matter of time. Companies that closed and where staff were owed money were given the company and a co-op formed, this is thinking outside the box.

Nice to see you are at least being radical now

My idea of being radical, unlike yours, is not an improved form of subservience under a delusional banner. Please do not try and imagine that I somehow agree with your naiive and mad ideas. The concept of self determination is normally the solution to a people historically repressed by unequal and tyrannical political unions. A social transformation of our economy can only happen if we make it. Ireland will never benefit from having its arse wiped by Berlin, London, Boston or anyone else.

[Seán Ryan]

That's the thing Fluffy, Gandhi isn't held in high esteem in India. There are plenty of folks from Gandhi's era, who were genuine revolutionaries, who are held in high esteem.

Inspiring people is not a revolutionary act. Look at the two scumbags currently running for the US throne, they both inspire the masses. Hardly revolutionary. Just because someone else might persuade the very same dimwits to a different cause, does not equate with a revolutionary act.

My philosophy on revolution is an incredibly simple one. There either is or there isn't a tipping point. Push someone enough and s/he will reach that point or not.

I have no respect for the concept of anarchopacifism or any other type of passivity. Though, in fairness, I do respect lots of people who practice it. I admire (mostly) anyone who'll suffer or die for their beliefs. But I think that anyone who would rather die than kill to validate and protect themselves and those they love is pushing stupidity as being a fact and ultimately, recognises the alleged superiority of their oppressor. That's evolution, not revolution. And it is to be on the losing side of evolution.

Violence isn't nice. I'm not debating otherwise. It should be avoided if feasible. But its effectiveness should never be ignored. Even the goons who treat you as property recognise this. It's not an issue of morality. No school of morality that is not self-contradictory, promotes the superiority of one over another. This system would happily beat you into less than a memory and continue on as if you never happened. Why would they use violence? Because it works.

If one happens to inspire another, that is a wonderful thing. If one sets out to inspire another, one has a sense of superiority and is not truly a fit object of inspiration.

The tipping point will inspire. Be prepared for that. Recognise it and act on it. Hoping to inspire others to the revolution when one is engaged in nothing that is revolutionary is to be no better than one's oppressors.

[Seán Ryan]

[fluffybiscuits]

My idea of being radical, unlike yours, is not an improved form of subservience under a delusional banner. Please do not try and imagine that I somehow agree with your naiive and mad ideas. The concept of self determination is normally the solution to a people historically repressed by unequal and tyrannical political unions. A social transformation of our economy can only happen if we make it. Ireland will never benefit from having its arse wiped by Berlin, London, Boston or anyone else.

Your idea is being a subservient slave to corporate masters which will lead quickly to a downfall of a Republic. A government with populist policies who will pander to big industry,cogs in the wheel of corporate machines. Self determination is the people, Republicanism will give us this but ona temporary basis and even at that it will still be corporate Ireland with the working man getting more wage cuts and benefits being cut.

That's the thing Fluffy, Gandhi isn't held in high esteem in India. There are plenty of folks from Gandhi's era, who were genuine revolutionaries, who are held in high esteem.

Inspiring people is not a revolutionary act. Look at the two scumbags currently running for the US throne, they both inspire the masses. Hardly revolutionary. Just because someone else might persuade the very same dimwits to a different cause, does not equate with a revolutionary act.

My philosophy on revolution is an incredibly simple one. There either is or there isn't a tipping point. Push someone enough and s/he will reach that point or not.

I have no respect for the concept of anarchopacifism or any other type of passivity. Though, in fairness, I do respect lots of people who practice it. I admire (mostly) anyone who'll suffer or die for their beliefs. But I think that anyone who would rather die than kill to validate and protect themselves and those they love is pushing stupidity as being a fact and ultimately, recognises the alleged superiority of their oppressor. That's evolution, not revolution. And it is to be on the losing side of evolution.

Violence isn't nice. I'm not debating otherwise. It should be avoided if feasible. But its effectiveness should never be ignored. Even the goons who treat you as property recognise this. It's not an issue of morality. No school of morality that is not self-contradictory, promotes the superiority of one over another. This system would happily beat you into less than a memory and continue on as if you never happened. Why would they use violence? Because it works.

If one happens to inspire another, that is a wonderful thing. If one sets out to inspire another, one has a sense of superiority and is not truly a fit object of inspiration.

The tipping point will inspire. Be prepared for that. Recognise it and act on it. Hoping to inspire others to the revolution when one is engaged in nothing that is revolutionary is to be no better than one's oppressors.

What is the tipping point though? We are experiencing so much indifference these days that to inspire someone would be a revolutionary act in itself! Dying for your beliefs is a noble cause but its also a waste of hard work that a dissident or fighter may have put in. Do people need to be marytred to achieve a revolution?

[Seán Ryan]

What is the tipping point though? We are experiencing so much indifference these days that to inspire someone would be a revolutionary act in itself! Dying for your beliefs is a noble cause but its also a waste of hard work that a dissident or fighter may have put in. Do people need to be marytred to achieve a revolution?

The tipping point is different for everyone, naturally so, I suppose. I would say that there should be associated with this concept an assumption. That assumption is that once the tipping point is reached, the affected person will fight until s/he cannot do so any more or resolution occurs. Thus, what is essentially a concept about an individual applies to the multitude as more and more people reach their tipping points.

So, for the individual, the tipping point is a moment in time. For the group it is a period of time, whereby the tipping stimulus itself could be a completely different event for each and every individual.

When we're talking about the individual, the tipping point is a simple enough mechanism to understand, indeed we all understand it in our own individualistic ways. For me, I reached my tipping point years ago (so long ago and so much more has been added that I forget what it was that pushed me over the edge ).

The complex entity to understand is the tipping point for a group. When does it occur? Can we as revolutionaries push it? What happens when it's reached?

The first question is the biggie. It's practically impossible to predict. I'd advise that we'll only recognise it when it happens. Not very satisfactory I suppose

The second question is the important one. I believe we can push the tipping point. Me personally, I'm mostly a stupid effer who'd happily sit back contentedly strumming my guitar waiting for my inevitable oblivion. But I'm very skilled in some things (just like everyone else). I examined my skills and concluded that I could use them in a very certain way that would put a major obstacle in the way of the State practicing its "business as usual" methodology. The result of which would highlight the State's malfeasant failings themselves and indeed would prevent the State from concluding its nefarious business. I conclude that if each of us used this methodology, we'd exponentially increase the speed of this oncoming tipping point.

I could argue that I'm a revolutionary and that I'm engaging in revolutionary practices. That'd be lovely and my ego would inflate to bursting point as I laid waste to the arguments of those who'd disagree with me. But such a process would completely miss the point. My revolution is not "the" revolution. My revolution is about bringing on "the" revolution.

Here's my offer to you Fluffy. It's the same offer I put on the table for anyone else (except fascists).

We would probably disagree on lots of things, if not most things. That's a given. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that we could agree about lots of things, lots of things that we both view as essentials. Rather than allow our disagreements divide us and spoil our cooperation in areas of mutual need and agreement, why not cooperate in the areas we agree on. If we achieve them we can always agree to hate each other afterwards, if our disagreements necessitate it.

But therein lies our problem. If your methodology necessitates that you must educate me, to your way of thinking, before we cooperate, then we're lost. I say the same is true if you intend to educate the rest of society as to what their tipping point is. You'll end up, each and every time, reduced to arguing semantics. And rather than speed up the tipping point, you'll either slow it or halt it.

There need not be a single martyr to produce a revolution. Indeed, not a single shot need be fired. Unless needs dictate otherwise. But the threat of force must be counterbalanced with a superior threat of force offered by those of us who've reached our points of no return. To not offer this counter threat is to say that we've not really reached a point of no return - we were only bluffing.

I say to you that the only education required is that we understand the need for cooperation and mutual support. Beyond that, the slate is clear and the revolution awaits.

[Apjp]

Your idea is being a subservient slave to corporate masters which will lead quickly to a downfall of a Republic. A government with populist policies who will pander to big industry,cogs in the wheel of corporate machines. Self determination is the people, Republicanism will give us this but on a temporary basis and even at that it will still be corporate Ireland with the working man getting more wage cuts and benefits being cut.





What is the tipping point though? We are experiencing so much indifference these days that to inspire someone would be a revolutionary act in itself! Dying for your beliefs is a noble cause but its also a waste of hard work that a dissident or fighter may have put in. Do people need to be marytred to achieve a revolution?

This is nonsense. You are a political unionist who does not believe in the sovereignty of independent republics and nation states. If it were upto you, we would change feck all, as essentially you want other people making our choices for us. I am advocating that the Irish run our own affairs. We need to stand on our own two feet. You already said you think Berlin should control our budgets. The SWP wants a union with Britain, and you chastised Sidey and me for not agreeing with being a colony, and then tried to twist our words on many occasions to say we should all aspire to live in la la land for the sake of agreeing with you. This shyte isn't hard to add up.

Last year I spent a lot of time studying French history, and I think I have a far better understanding of Republicanism than you do. You argue it's a stepping stone to giving away more sovereignty, to joining some future political federation. That's effectively your argument. I've always said the one thing De Valera got right was warning about the dangers of a European constitution, something De Gaulle firmly opposed as well. We now have a european constitution in the form of the Lisbon Treaty, which has been passed in all member states. I'm pretty sure our grandfathers didn't get the British out so that we could get into a worse position. When you give away your sovereignty, you give away your right to have a socialist republic or any sort of even basic social safety net for the poor and vulnerable. Anybody advising the surrender of further sovereignty, given the current climate, is a pure utopianist or else euro fundamentalist who in their obsequious rush to be ruled by others, would have us living in a Huxley novel pretty quickly. And by the way, you should brush up on your French. Monde is a masculine noun and you'd be better off saying citoyen(if that's not too republican for you!) or homme instead of personne.

[fluffybiscuits]

The tipping point is different for everyone, naturally so, I suppose. I would say that there should be associated with this concept an assumption. That assumption is that once the tipping point is reached, the affected person will fight until s/he cannot do so any more or resolution occurs. Thus, what is essentially a concept about an individual applies to the multitude as more and more people reach their tipping points.

So, for the individual, the tipping point is a moment in time. For the group it is a period of time, whereby the tipping stimulus itself could be a completely different event for each and every individual.

When we're talking about the individual, the tipping point is a simple enough mechanism to understand, indeed we all understand it in our own individualistic ways. For me, I reached my tipping point years ago (so long ago and so much more has been added that I forget what it was that pushed me over the edge ).

The complex entity to understand is the tipping point for a group. When does it occur? Can we as revolutionaries push it? What happens when it's reached?

The first question is the biggie. It's practically impossible to predict. I'd advise that we'll only recognise it when it happens. Not very satisfactory I suppose

The second question is the important one. I believe we can push the tipping point. Me personally, I'm mostly a stupid effer who'd happily sit back contentedly strumming my guitar waiting for my inevitable oblivion. But I'm very skilled in some things (just like everyone else). I examined my skills and concluded that I could use them in a very certain way that would put a major obstacle in the way of the State practicing its "business as usual" methodology. The result of which would highlight the State's malfeasant failings themselves and indeed would prevent the State from concluding its nefarious business. I conclude that if each of us used this methodology, we'd exponentially increase the speed of this oncoming tipping point.

I could argue that I'm a revolutionary and that I'm engaging in revolutionary practices. That'd be lovely and my ego would inflate to bursting point as I laid waste to the arguments of those who'd disagree with me. But such a process would completely miss the point. My revolution is not "the" revolution. My revolution is about bringing on "the" revolution.

Here's my offer to you Fluffy. It's the same offer I put on the table for anyone else (except fascists).

We would probably disagree on lots of things, if not most things. That's a given. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that we could agree about lots of things, lots of things that we both view as essentials. Rather than allow our disagreements divide us and spoil our cooperation in areas of mutual need and agreement, why not cooperate in the areas we agree on. If we achieve them we can always agree to hate each other afterwards, if our disagreements necessitate it.

But therein lies our problem. If your methodology necessitates that you must educate me, to your way of thinking, before we cooperate, then we're lost. I say the same is true if you intend to educate the rest of society as to what their tipping point is. You'll end up, each and every time, reduced to arguing semantics. And rather than speed up the tipping point, you'll either slow it or halt it.

There need not be a single martyr to produce a revolution. Indeed, not a single shot need be fired. Unless needs dictate otherwise. But the threat of force must be counterbalanced with a superior threat of force offered by those of us who've reached our points of no return. To not offer this counter threat is to say that we've not really reached a point of no return - we were only bluffing.

I say to you that the only education required is that we understand the need for cooperation and mutual support. Beyond that, the slate is clear and the revolution awaits.

In order to reach a tipping point though people do need to be boiling over but as as typical of Irish people most of us will grumble and complain till the ends of the earth but will never reach a tipping point as we will never realise it. A tipping point would require us to work together and as there so much individualistic materialism this would not be achieved quite easily. For the group to trigger its going to require a lot of people to reach that tipping point , it neednt all be at the same time.

Our first act as revolutionary thinking is to inspire the masses or certain individuals in the hierarchy of society who have influence as these are the people that others listen to. Our skills do lie in seeking to undermine a capitalist system and state however they are also to be used to get the working man to think and reflect in on his future. That is what revolutionary politics should do.

Your point is very valid on co-operation on a future and then Im quite happy to look for common ground on this thread with people to build a common consensus and even with the new party thread, ideas to inspire and to empower. There is never any issue pointing our flaws ina problem and suggesting improvement, I wouold never want to bully anyone into my way of thinking but I will defend my way of thinking.

[fluffybiscuits]

This is nonsense. You are a political unionist who does not believe in the sovereignty of independent republics and nation states. If it were upto you, we would change feck all, as essentially you want other people making our choices for us. I am advocating that the Irish run our own affairs. We need to stand on our own two feet. You already said you think Berlin should control our budgets. The SWP wants a union with Britain, and you chastised Sidey and me for not agreeing with being a colony, and then tried to twist our words on many occasions to say we should all aspire to live in la la land for the sake of agreeing with you. This shyte isn't hard to add up.

Last year I spent a lot of time studying French history, and I think I have a far better understanding of Republicanism than you do. You argue it's a stepping stone to giving away more sovereignty, to joining some future political federation. That's effectively your argument. I've always said the one thing De Valera got right was warning about the dangers of a European constitution, something De Gaulle firmly opposed as well. We now have a european constitution in the form of the Lisbon Treaty, which has been passed in all member states. I'm pretty sure our grandfathers didn't get the British out so that we could get into a worse position. When you give away your sovereignty, you give away your right to have a socialist republic or any sort of even basic social safety net for the poor and vulnerable. Anybody advising the surrender of further sovereignty, given the current climate, is a pure utopianist or else euro fundamentalist who in their obsequious rush to be ruled by others, would have us living in a Huxley novel pretty quickly. And by the way, you should brush up on your French. Monde is a masculine noun and you'd be better off saying citoyen(if that's not too republican for you!) or homme instead of personne.

I never said Berlin should control our budgets, I said the people should take control of their budgets not some centralised faceless bureaucracy. The suggestion was we follow a Swiss style model perhaps that decentralises powers to worker lead and worker voted parliaments, not like elitest infested Oireachtas we have now. Notions such as nationality and borders reinforce self serving interests , smash the borders, stop the deportations and scrap nationality and bring us into one world but the federal Europe is the next best thing. I see nationality as being too narrow in scope in thinking and a barrier to achieving a humanity who sees itself in terms other than that of geographically.

Im taking your point on board about the French! I need to brush up! Im a lot more at ease speaking than writing

[Apjp]

The tipping point is different for everyone, naturally so, I suppose. I would say that there should be associated with this concept an assumption. That assumption is that once the tipping point is reached, the affected person will fight until s/he cannot do so any more or resolution occurs. Thus, what is essentially a concept about an individual applies to the multitude as more and more people reach their tipping points.

So, for the individual, the tipping point is a moment in time. For the group it is a period of time, whereby the tipping stimulus itself could be a completely different event for each and every individual.

When we're talking about the individual, the tipping point is a simple enough mechanism to understand, indeed we all understand it in our own individualistic ways. For me, I reached my tipping point years ago (so long ago and so much more has been added that I forget what it was that pushed me over the edge ).

The complex entity to understand is the tipping point for a group. When does it occur? Can we as revolutionaries push it? What happens when it's reached?

The first question is the biggie. It's practically impossible to predict. I'd advise that we'll only recognise it when it happens. Not very satisfactory I suppose

The second question is the important one. I believe we can push the tipping point. Me personally, I'm mostly a stupid effer who'd happily sit back contentedly strumming my guitar waiting for my inevitable oblivion. But I'm very skilled in some things (just like everyone else). I examined my skills and concluded that I could use them in a very certain way that would put a major obstacle in the way of the State practicing its "business as usual" methodology. The result of which would highlight the State's malfeasant failings themselves and indeed would prevent the State from concluding its nefarious business. I conclude that if each of us used this methodology, we'd exponentially increase the speed of this oncoming tipping point.

I could argue that I'm a revolutionary and that I'm engaging in revolutionary practices. That'd be lovely and my ego would inflate to bursting point as I laid waste to the arguments of those who'd disagree with me. But such a process would completely miss the point. My revolution is not "the" revolution. My revolution is about bringing on "the" revolution.

Here's my offer to you Fluffy. It's the same offer I put on the table for anyone else (except fascists).

We would probably disagree on lots of things, if not most things. That's a given. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that we could agree about lots of things, lots of things that we both view as essentials. Rather than allow our disagreements divide us and spoil our cooperation in areas of mutual need and agreement, why not cooperate in the areas we agree on. If we achieve them we can always agree to hate each other afterwards, if our disagreements necessitate it.

But therein lies our problem. If your methodology necessitates that you must educate me, to your way of thinking, before we cooperate, then we're lost. I say the same is true if you intend to educate the rest of society as to what their tipping point is. You'll end up, each and every time, reduced to arguing semantics. And rather than speed up the tipping point, you'll either slow it or halt it.

There need not be a single martyr to produce a revolution. Indeed, not a single shot need be fired. Unless needs dictate otherwise. But the threat of force must be counterbalanced with a superior threat of force offered by those of us who've reached our points of no return. To not offer this counter threat is to say that we've not really reached a point of no return - we were only bluffing.

I say to you that the only education required is that we understand the need for cooperation and mutual support. Beyond that, the slate is clear and the revolution awaits.

That depends. Do you think that Ireland should be a sovereign democratic republic? If yes, Fluffy is likely to tell you that you must conform to his/her way of thinking, which is a political union not unlike our current one. The SWP, of which he is a member, all favour a supranational union in which we, whatever type of beliefs we have, would be subservient to bigger nation states who have imperialist and expansionist interests. A left wing republican such as myself would argue quite plainly that we are already part of a political union in which our constitution is now suberservient to the Lisbon one, recolonized as servants of that union, and therefore need not bother with a revolution to achieve such a thing as it already exists.