Conor Cruise O'Brien welcomed back to Labour Party by Pat Rabbitt

by Raver Mon Jul 05, 2004 13:57

His position on the national question would closely match that of the SP. His fondness towards Zionism would also be shared by the CWI.

by ec Mon Jul 05, 2004 14:00

.

by SBP reader Mon Jul 05, 2004 14:15

I remembered reading something about this a couple of weeks ago and being a bit amazed.
Here is where the story was first reported.

by ec Mon Jul 05, 2004 14:33

.

by Raver Mon Jul 05, 2004 14:40

I was merely pointing out some facts. CCOB would certainly be a soulmate of the SP when it comes to both the Irish and Israeli/palestinan questions. The Cruisers ravings are little different from those of Hadden.

by Trollwatch Mon Jul 05, 2004 14:59

Here's a hint for you: When you are called on your trolling, trying to repeat it just makes you look even worse.

Now on the actual topic of this thread, the decision of O'Brien to join Labour is certainly interesting. Obviously Rabbitte as a former Stick would have certain ideological affinities with him when it comes to the Provies, but what about the rest of his politics?

by pat c Mon Jul 05, 2004 15:37

i dont think that bugs would have much in common with conor cruise. the bunny was never really part of the foaming at the mouth anti-provo tendency in the sticks. its strange that bugs should welcome old conor in. but labour is indeed a broad church. it has to be if it includes both bree & o'brien.

conor cruise still comes out with some very bizarre lines in the sindo - he makes Eoghan Harris look sane. hes likely to prove a source of embarrassment to labour.

by Canteen Kevin Mon Jul 05, 2004 16:17

Bitter anti-Irish old ratbag joins Ireland's shittiest centre-right party? Well done Rabitte.

Anyone who has any doubt about Labour being a party for the rich should check their transfers in the recent elections. They transferred heavily to the blueshirts and saved Bertie Juniors seat in Cabra-Glasnevin.

No doubt they have lined this tax-dodging old fascist up to be Minister for Justice in their next Blueshirt saving coalition.

by Raver Mon Jul 05, 2004 16:31

Its Bertie senior actually. Maurice Ahern is Berties older brother. The other brother Noel, I think hes older than Bertie as well.

by Tallyman Mon Jul 05, 2004 16:31

My reading of the figures is this:
Ahern got 38 Labour transfers. Perry got 37.
More interestingly of course is the fact that Perry was the highest recepient of Talbot's votes with 88 transfers whereas Ahern received 24 votes. Therefore Perry is obviously closer to the right wing xenophobic politics of the ICP.

Thanks for the link - shame you couldn't analyse them a bit better.

by Canteen Kevin Mon Jul 05, 2004 16:57

Seein as you're asking Tallyman, OK I'll "analyse" them a bit better, especially the parts you conveniently igonore

Total Labour Transfers

Perry -38
Fine Gael - 205
Fianna Fail -82

Talbot's votes presumably transferred to Perry as the only other independent candidate or are you seriously trying to insinuate that Perry ran on a racist platform?

by Tally Bean Mon Jul 05, 2004 17:00

159 of Joe Mooneys votes went to FF and 243 went to Labour. Does this mean that Mooney supports FF and Labour?

Cop on Canteen Kevin.

by Tallyman Mon Jul 05, 2004 17:14

I just analysed the transfers to Ahern and then I was using your logic on Talbot.

by Canteen Kevin Mon Jul 05, 2004 17:19

You try to throw racist smears around and you tell me to "cop on" ??? Fugh back to the Cruiser and your mercedes mates. If you right wing dickheads cooperated with other left wing candidates instead of constantly attacking anyone on your left while lickarsing the blueshirts backstabbing there would be a lot more genuine representation on DCC.

Your piggybacking on the blueshirts backs to gain a few crumbs of power is only for your own self aggrandizement and of zero benefit to the communities who vote for your brand name.

by Water Cooler Alice Mon Jul 05, 2004 17:27

If you look at the final count Perry only lost by 90 or so votes. If the Labour transfers had gone Perry +205 and the smaller numbers to FG and FF then Maurice would have been out on his ear. As it was he was crying all over the Sunday papers about how his family name had lost him votes!

But is seems the Labour supporters on here are much happier to work with their sole mates in FF and FG rather than give a chance to a Independent community activist. Sad, but not surprising at all.

by f Mon Jul 05, 2004 17:52

Transfers in general can give an insight into the nature of the support that a party has. However you must take them with a pinch of salt. For example transfers may go to candidates that you wouldn't on paper think they would go to, but do so because of local factors. For example, I know that in Dundrum SF transfered fairly heavily to a sitting FF councillor. The reason was because the SF candidate and FF councillor both lived on the same street, not because SF voters are supporters of FF.

I think if people are going to analyse Labour transfers you have to take into account factors such as these. You should also look at the trend nationally.

by Tally Bean Mon Jul 05, 2004 17:59

CK how is it ok for you to say that Labour is supporting FF & FG because of transfers but not ok for Tallyman to (ironically) draw analogies from transfers Perry got? By your 'logic' Perry is piggybacking on fascist votes.

And getting back to the Mooney case by your twisted logic then Mooney is supporting FF because his votes went to FF.

Cop yourselves on and use adult analysis instead of juvenile gobbleygook.

by Interested Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:15

O'Neill of the ISN in Finglas - his vote went 170 to FG and 153 to FF and 282 to the Labour Party. I suppose that means that the ISN is also a rotten supporter of blueshirts, fascists and whatever else Kevin and cooler are having today.

by Canteen Kevin Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:32

Pretty obvious but I guess I'll have to spell it out. Perry ran as an INDEPENDENT. The only other INDEPENDENT that ran was Talbot. INDEPENDENT'S votes usually transfer to other INDEPENDENTS in high percentages purely because they are INDEPENDENTS.

Labour runs as a (tiny "s") socialist party. FF/FG/PD run as fuck-the-plebs parties. By any logic Labours votes should transfer to other socialist parties, but then again since when was labour a socialist/left wing party?

Labours votes in Cabra/Glasnevin were crucial in deciding where the last seat went to -either FF or an Independent. Good old Labour propping up the junta "show this Government the red card" -yeah right

by Trotwatch Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:33

SWP Transfers

Wingfield : FF 21, FG 6, Lab 65.

Browne : FF 145, Lab 772.

Donohoe : FF 15, FG 19, Lab 64.

Ryan : PD 17, FF 37, FG 17.

by Tally Bean Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:40

is that Canteen Kevin doesnt understand the meaning of irony and thinks the world works differently for his favoured candidates Monney and Perry. You really need to learn to understand that you cant have one set of rules of logic for your chums and another for everyone else. Thats not how the adult world works.

"Labours votes in Cabra/Glasnevin were crucial in deciding where the last seat went to -either FF or an Independent. "

No, the transfers of Labour voters were. Just as those who voted for Mooney transferred heavily to FF and Labour rather than to an independent. Are you condemning those who voted Mooney 1 and FF 2?

by Canteen Kevin Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:43

Only 323 out J O'Neill's 1,314 transfers went to right wing parties (Labour excluded)

Out of Carrs surplus of 181, 122 went to right-wingers, 46 were non-transferable and a pathetic 13 went to Perry, the Ahern name has truly a lot to be grateful to labour for.

by Tally Bean Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:45

Whats different about the Mooney transfers?

by Canteen Kevin Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:47

Only 159 of Mooneys 943 transfers went to the right, what's that 16%? Nothing like the c.80% transfer to the right of Labours votes when there is no Green or other Labour candidate

by Interested Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:48

159 of Mooneys votes went to FF. The Stafford name has a lot to thank WCA for.

by Tally Bean Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:51

You have to learn how to apply it!

"Only 159 of Mooneys 943 transfers went to the right, "

A moment ago you were accusing Labour of being a rightwing party in cahoots with fascists. Now because it suits your argument. Labour are no longer rightwing!

Throw in the towel CK, you are just making a fool of yourself.

by - Mon Jul 05, 2004 18:55

The main thing that endears the United Nations to member governments, and so enables it to survive, is its proven capacity to fail, and to be seen to fail.
Conor Cruise O'Brien

The United Nations cannot do anything, and never could; it is not an animate entity or agent. It is a place, a stage, a forum and a shrine. a place to which powerful people can repair when they are fearful about the course on which their own rhetoric seems to be propelling them.
Conor Cruise O'Brien

You can safely appeal to the United Nations in the comfortable certainty that it will let you down.
Conor Cruise O'Brien

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Tue Jul 06, 2004 01:21

The Australian Labor Party just stole Peter Garrett, the lead singer of Midnight Oil...the most popular and left band in Australia over the last 20 years....parachuted him in to a safe Labor seat (much to the disdain of the local rank and file).....what a bummer...Pete reversed his position on nuclear warship visits, U.S.base in OZ and the "War on Terror" (sic) all in one week!

In 1984 Pete ran for the Nuclear Disarmament Party and would have walked into a federal (NSW) seat...only for the Labor Party redirecting it's preferences to the Conservatives (known as the Liberal Party in Australia even to make thangs more confusing!) and away from NDP/Garret.....the NDP got a couple of senators in - in '84 which is pretty good considering we didn't have any nuclear weapons to disarm!

So a bummer for OZ rock and roll......."trust the tale and not the teller" when it comes to the Oils lyrics.......great songs, inspire us still!!!!!!! Labor Party "same shit different flies!" as we say in OZ!

by Gallowglass Tue Jul 06, 2004 02:59

This fascist Arch-Zionist has no place in any political group purporting to be a Socialist Party. Who next? Sammy Wilson?

by neverforgetnorforgive Tue Jul 06, 2004 03:06

I'm not really interested in how the transfers pan out. What really matters is where the cruiser's loyalties lie. A late uncle of mine, a 1916 veteran who later accepted the Treaty, was adamant in the seventies that the cruiser was then a British agent, and had been at least as far back as the time of the Congo crisis. Whatever about the accuracy of that belief there is certainly a question mark over O'Brien's, and the rest of the then Labour Party's complicity in the Garda Heavy Gang affair during the 1973-77 coalition between Labour and Fine Gael.
It is not surprising that Tommy Broughan objected to the cruiser's attempt to rejoin, but I wait with interest to hear the splashes as Broughan and others jump ship when the cruiser is imposed as a candidate.

by Ken Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:28

"O'Neill of the ISN in Finglas - his vote went 170 to FG and 153 to FF and 282 to the Labour Party. "

O'Neill, Perry et al got first preferences and then transfers from all over the place - O'Neill even got some from the PD's- Its stupid to generalise about the quirks of the Irish electorate but transfers are sometimes helpful to give you an overall trend.

Back to CC O B. Him joining Labour is not a awful really but a real indication of where the Labour Party is politically. Cruiser is a fossil. His hysterical hatred for the provo's and any other brand of republicanism is outdated by the political realities of Ireland 2004.

Let the LP be the sewer that holds all these dinosaurs.

by Tally Bean Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:58

"O'Neill, Perry et al got first preferences and then transfers from all over the place - O'Neill even got some from the PD's- Its stupid to generalise about the quirks of the Irish electorate but transfers are sometimes helpful to give you an overall trend."

Exactly! Its just what I and others have been trying to point out to CK and others here. Its nonsense to suggest that Labour wanted to elect Maurice Ahern just as it is nonsense to suggest that Mooney wanted to elect Stafford.

by O'Neill groupie Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:32

"O'Neill of the ISN in Finglas - his vote went 170 to FG and 153 to FF and 282 to the Labour Party. I suppose that means that the ISN is also a rotten supporter of blueshirts, fascists and whatever else Kevin and cooler are having today."

You fail to mention that 333 of O'Neill's vote went to the second Shinner and 376 of his vote were non-transferable. I think that this proves that he is an ultra-leftist, anarcho-stalinist reformist. Or whatever your having yourself.

by Canteen Kevin Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:08

As your own grasp of logic seems to be lacking I'll rephrase;

1. 16% of Mooneys vote went to the extreme right (FF)
2. c.84% of his vote went to left and centre right (Labour)

Check Labour's transfers and you will find in a field of FG,SF,WP, Independents 60%+ transferring to the blueshirts .

"A moment ago you were accusing Labour of being a rightwing party in cahoots with fascists" -Are you denying Labour are not planning on going in coaltion with the blueshirts?, I never said "in cahoots with fascists" you soundbiting twat.

You tried to bring racism into this, not me, remember? you must have learned a few tricks from your FG buddies. Again, I never said that Labour wanted Ahern elected but I am saying that Labour are behaving as the blueshirts best cabin boy to gain electoral office and seem to be perfectly willing to give those parasites the electoral kiss of life when they should be putting the boot in.

"Throw in the towel CK, you are just making a fool of yourself." Am I really Tallywat? You wish, comrade, you wish.

by Tally Bean Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:22

Is that Why you have to use such chauvinist binsults? Do you think you are scoring a debating point by calling me atwat?You obviously have no use for logic or reasoned argument. Again I will point out to you that the same rules of logic apply to you and your chums as apply to the rest of the world. Thats the way the grown-up world works.

If you are going to draw inferences from LP transfer patterns then you should not be surprised if others use your "logic" to draw inferences from Perry and Mooney transfer patterns. I made clear to you that I was not suggesting Perry had courted ICP votes. I was just using your "logic" to draw an analogy.

I hope that some day you will grow up and learn to argue with women as equals. Answer the points made rather compare me to a portion of the female anatomy. I wonder if Mooney and Perry are proud to have a supporter like you?

by Tally Bean Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:33

Canteen Kevin tells a few fibs. Is he not aware that his comments are here on the thread and all rteaders have to do is sroll back up to read previous comments.

"I never said "in cahoots with fascists""

CK said the equivalent in:
"No doubt they have lined this tax-dodging old fascist up to be Minister for Justice in their next Blueshirt saving coalition."

He fibs again:
" I never said that Labour wanted Ahern elected"

But if you scroll up a little you will read this by CK:
"Labours votes in Cabra/Glasnevin were crucial in deciding where the last seat went to -either FF or an Independent. Good old Labour propping up the junta"

Keep it up Kev you really are showing how childish and incoherent your views are.

by labour lover Tue Jul 06, 2004 13:19

Of course the parties don't control the transfers the people do...thankfully.

A lot of very popular candidates transfer all over the palce as Carr would have done, this is because they bring in a lot on non party votes through hard work. These then go elsewhere on the no.2's

The vast bulk of Gibneys votes went to Carr as he was still in the race so I don't know what our canteen friend is talking about.

By the time Carr got a surplus he had accumulated transfers from a lot of others which weren't LP votes anyway. To the best of my knowledge there would be a geographic link with Donohoe as well which explains th enumer he got.

by Canteen Kevin Tue Jul 06, 2004 14:17

you take three posts to respond to one of mine, and now you throw in sexism as well. You have now introduced racism, sexism, "rules of logic" and "maturity" to counter my arguments. Save your outrage.
In your mature eyes "No doubt they have lined this tax-dodging old fascist up to be Minister for Justice in their next Blueshirt saving coalition" equals"in cahoots with fascists" and "Good old Labour propping up the junta" equals "Labour wanted Ahern elected". You're the one lecturing me on maturity?

Anyway deny these if you will;

1. Labour transfers favoured the blueshirts much more than parties on the left.,

2. Labour decided to share power with FG on DCC when they could have formed a left coalition.

3. a tax-dodging old fascist self confessed Briton into the party feels that Labour is a political home for him and is allowed in. Doesn't bother you no?

Of course this is all childish and incoherent to a sage of party wisdom like yourself

by hoho Tue Jul 06, 2004 14:39

It almost looks like someone wants to flood this thread with nonsense about transfers, rather than discussing aspects of O'Brien's history. A good point was made last night about his allegiances and about the coalition in the 1970's, and of course the heavy gang.

by Tally Bean Tue Jul 06, 2004 15:07

"you take three posts to respond to one of mine, and now you throw in sexism as well. You have now introduced racism, sexism, "rules of logic" and "maturity" to counter my arguments."

No Kevin you were the first to bring in fascism. How many times must I mention the word irony? You used anti woman terms against me because I was beating you in an argument, and your level of argument is consistently illogical and immature.



"In your mature eyes "No doubt they have lined this tax-dodging old fascist up to be Minister for Justice in their next Blueshirt saving coalition" equals"in cahoots withfascists" and "Good old Labour propping up the junta" equals "Labour wanted Ahern elected". You're the one lecturing me on maturity? "

Yes, to suggest that Labour would have a facsist in government is the same as suggesting that Labour are "in cahoots with facsists". The point of about Labour and Ahern is the same. I am confident that rational IMC users would agree with me,



"1. Labour transfers favoured the blueshirts much more than parties on the left., "

Mooneys transfers to Labour and FF were greater than his transfers to Rafferty. Please grow up. Labour doesnt decide where the transfers go, Mooney doesnt decide where the transfers go. The voters decide where the transfers go.

"2. Labour decided to share power with FG on DCC when they could have formed a left coalition."

When did I make any comment on this? I would have preffered if Labour had gone into a Left coalition. But I dont see how you would view it as a left coalition since you see Labour as rightwing. From your comments on other threads you also see SF as rightwing. So I am puzzled as to where (in your eyes) the left part of the coalition would have come from apart from Joan Collins.

"3. a tax-dodging old fascist self confessed Briton into the party feels that Labour is a political home for him and is allowed in. Doesn't bother you no?"

I would prefer if he had stayed out or been rejected but his membership application was supported by the Howth branch and ratified by the EC.

"Of course this is all childish and incoherent to a sage of party wisdom like yourself"

I am no sage but you have once again tied yourself in knots.

by iosaf Tue Jul 06, 2004 15:56

Oh It's summer time, the students are gone, and only the old men and women of the Left are here to discuss the direction of the global evolving revolution.
So-

Conor Cruise O Brien was a British Agent?
Sounds great. Could we have more of that please? I'd love to see the connection between a MI5 conduit (am I jumping the gun running here, just I think Cruiser was probably only a conduit, I can't imagine him wrestling microfilm from his hollow shoe heel on the swords road and being an "active" agent) in the 1970s the Irish diplomatic corp and the UKIP some thirty years later. Are the UKIP run by MI5 as well?
- They might just be.

When I was a lad, I used cog answers in elementary french from the son of the Irish desk at Berne, and that poor lad, who in time honoured fashion became a Civil Servant himself, hero worshipped CCO'brien, referring to him as "Ireland's only intellectual".
I believe there were other candidates for "ireland's only intellectual" but they were the wrong type- Eoghan Harris, Eamon Mc cann and of course Nell Mc Cafferty. Conor Cruise O'brien was Dublin's only defence against them apparantly. I always got the impression that this attitude reflected the feeling in the Irish civil service throughout the 70s and early 80s. Is it not odd, that he's still around? Of course then came the Celtic Tiger and the Irish realised that they didn't need any intellectuals after all.

OK. I know what needs to be done.

We'll all join the Labour Party.
my fiver is going in the post this afternoon.

by Paddy X Tue Jul 06, 2004 17:59

As a supporter of Irish Unionism-one of the most backward political formations in Europe-and for many years the Censor-in-Chief for the Irish State, O'Brien should not be allowed into a middle of the road, liberal party let alone a so-called 'Labour Party'. Clearly Sinn Fein is now the party of the Irish working class.

by intelecktshual Tue Jul 06, 2004 17:59

even allowing for a punt equaling a euro.
which it doesn't nor didn't nor I suppose will.

Let's put the gristle to the mill and no more of the pulling punches.
¿Why did Conor Cruise O brien join the UKIP?
any one know?

by pat c Tue Jul 06, 2004 18:36

i did a search, couldnt find anything. i vaguely remember the cruiser having some self serving rationale for joining the ukup at the time. someone somewhere must have saved a relevant article.

btw this preferences stuff is getting ridiclious. canteen kevin is talking rot, if hes going to claim that labour are responsible for where their preferences go then hes got to accept that all candidates are responsible for where their preferences go. but the reality is that individual voters decide on the final destination of their vote.

i have read carefully through the comments and nowhere is there an accusation that cieran perry looked for transfers from talbot. nor has anyone seriously suggested that joe mooney wanted transfers to go to ff. if i thought there was i would have certainly objected.

what some posters did was to use canteen kevins own style of argument to try and show kevin how his argument did not stand up to analysis. canteen kevin in his inimitable style then resorted to demeaning sexist abuse. that did not win any arguments or impress anyone.

for kevins information, the view on the editorial list so far is that he is being hammered in this debate. this has got nothing to do with support for labour. it has everything to do with kevins abusive debating style.

by :-) - just back from searching myself. Tue Jul 06, 2004 19:07

"It is not pleasant living in a country whose political culture you despise."
the Cruise O'brien on Ireland. I found a biog published last year on orange day-
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,995447,00.html
I found bits and bobs about Telephone bills and TV set reception and Dail stuff. The hint that he hates Jefferson, the idea that he wanted to show "anti-agreement" but not "anti-catholicke" sentiments by running for the UKIP.
I also found out he's been damned to Hell for over sixty years for ignoring the Episcopal ban on his entering Trinity.
He probably has forgotten about that. & he's famous for being an intelektshual aetheist. But the fact remains, he was told by the holy muddhar church not to goto Trinity and he did. They even gave him a doctorate.
I further discovered there are 21 boxes of his personal papers in UCD's archive, and you can rumage them to write a thesis.
And I discovered that he dodged loads of tax thinking his intellektual musings were artistic.

I also found out that he really doesn't have any intellektshual acheivement to his name.
Loads of people know his name, and he certainly has written lots of non artistic stuff, and been a bit of a character, but he doesn't appear to have actually achieved "anything",
at all.
other than "he contesting what R.F. Foster termed the "established pieties""
Wow. is that it?
God. It was easy to be an Irish intellektshual in the 20th century wasn't it?
All you had to do was a bit of historical revisionism and think Haughey was corrupt and you were a thinking publishing lovely but not quite artistic man.

The Labour Party can go Unionist all they want, I'm not joining till they reduce the workingman's membership to 5 euros.

by ecumenical Tue Jul 06, 2004 19:13

Let's be clear here, Roman Catholickes were not allowed attend courses of undergraduate study at Dublin University Trinty College until the late 1960s without permission from their bishop.
If any did, they're damned. Now not many had the scurillous darkness of heart and naked ambition to ignore the teachings of their holy and apostolic catholicke church, but Conor Cruise O Brien was one of them.
He thought he knew better.
Oh well you can think you know better all you want "Dr" O brien. You're going to hell and probably taking Pat Rabitte with you.
No wonder you've got people like that Ivana now.

by Scath Sheamais - PFJ Tue Jul 06, 2004 19:20

It wasn't UKIP, it was the UK Unionist Party.
Website: http://www.ukup.org/

by Toaster boy Tue Jul 06, 2004 20:28

As the local and Euro elction campaign rolled into the final week, LP posters flew up across the city, "show the government the red card". Fine words, only I think there may have been a miss print, or slip of the wrist as the LP hacks hurriedly worked to get the text to the printers on time. Surely it should have read "show them the red carpet". Lp commentators have rightly pointed out that tens of thousands of voters ignored (no-hope) candidates to the left of labour. Surely there needs to be more analysis and indeed some answers on this site to explain YET ANOTHER LP betrayal as Labour have done sweet heart deals not only with potential "Caring Coalition" parties, but indeed with Fianna fail.

Shame on you.......................again

by Laura Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:33

ecumenical: you are quite right that catholics were not allowed to attend TCD until the 1960s but this was not the college policy - it was the catholic churches policy. Catholics were not prevented by TCD at this point (though they almost certainly were historically). The policy was enforced by John Charles McQuaid and other Irish bishops of the time, who worked to ensure that sectarianism remain alive and well every bit as much as any bible bashing free presbyterian orangeman.

Conor Cruise O Brien did not attend a catholic school either , he attend my ex-employer, Sandford Park, a totally non-denominational institution.

As to Conor's politics, he has always believed that non-constitutional agression was the enemy of both the British and Irish interests in the north and agressively fought the rise of SF and the provisional republican movement at every level. It is quite debateable to say now whether this was a good or bad thing. What we do know is that it did not stem the tide of violence, but at the same time it did stem the tide of rising republican support. It is only since the repealing of section 31, which O'Brien extended in 1976, that Sinn Fein have made huge gains in popularity, but ominuously, it remains to be seen whether or not this will help stabilise Northern Ireland or create an ever deteriorating policitical situation.

O'Brien's making friends with the unionists is not as simplistic as it has sometimes been made out to be. A real split in the UUP occured in the mid 1990s when Drumcree was a massive headache. At the time, Ken Maginnis was expected to become the leader but David Thrimble's expected victory slowed progression towards co-operative politics in the UUP. Naturally, O'Brien would have not liked to associate with a party that had failed to drop the shackles of sectarianism. Bob McCartney had long since been a thorn in the side of the UUP and at one point was seen to be a real threat to the UUP's dominance. There was a logical sense to O'Brien's membership of the UKUP at that time. Since then the UKUP has practically disintegrated (in fact I think its failure has been down to the fact that for all its claims to pluralism, its positions basically duplicate that of the DUP). Several anti-republican Irish statists have sided with unionist groups in order to oppose the less palatable illegal underbelly of the Provisional IRA. There are numerous pro-unionist members of other Irish political parties who basically feel that SF/IRA is building a potentially explosive threat to democracy on bother sides of the border by using the democractic process to gain support whilst at the same time recruiting and training paramilitaries. Indeed, this even includes some southern members of the Orange Order!!

As for his politics, O'Brien was always otherwise broadly liberal on social issues. I would think that Labour would welcome him as a diverse member.

by Labour lover Wed Jul 07, 2004 13:09

All forms of parties have done all sorts of deals all around the country. That's the way local governemnt is strucutrued. Somebody has to chair the meetings and sub-committees. Are you suggesting LP stand aside unless it has an overall majority (nowhere!) or simply allow everyone else rund the show.

by Labour lover Wed Jul 07, 2004 13:10

...this was a reply to toaster boy

by Andy Wed Jul 07, 2004 13:56

CCOB complex? No, just a typical upper middle class twat that thinks because he is one of our betters we should laud over his every word. Conor Cruise O Brit showed me his contempt for democracy and integrity when he decided that, although there was a boycott of South Africa and the Apartheid regime and he was a member of the IAAM, he would break the boycott to visit South Africa, in other words- he was more important than any silly boycott.

Enuff said. The Irish Independent, the newspaper of the conservative/right/neo liberal assholes that ruin Ireland lurve his frequent hysterics about the Sinn Fein bogymen and the SF plot to overthrow our beautiful democracy (if only they were really interested) and why any means neccessary are justified in crushing SF.

Labour have forgotten the class they always were supposed to represent but never did. They have become the political equivelant of a social worker that "cares for the poor" until 5pm when its time to go home to their all mod con luxury middle class home. All they are into now is the primacy of a slightly regulated market as opposed to brennan/mc creevey/aherne/harney's neo-con fest.

They are rats and another, rat will not make much of a difference

by on-looker Wed Jul 07, 2004 17:54

"They have become the political equivelant of a social worker that "cares for the poor" until 5pm when its time to go home to their all mod con luxury middle class home"

I dont believe social workers can afford mod con luxury middle class homes. Have a look at house prices in "working class" areas.

Do you think they should work for free at any time of day? How do they survive?

by Frank Ryan Wed Jul 07, 2004 18:37

How much more evidence do Labour Party supporters need to be convinced that this party has years ago betrayed the socialist republican legacy of Connolly and Larkin? The only credible Left Wing party political alternative now is Sinn Fein. The various Left Independents, good and all as their politics may be, as well as SP and SWP do not have the organisational capacity or broad appeal within working-class areas to deliver what is required in terms of a mass party of the ordinary working people with the ultimate objective of a socialist republic.

by Stephen Daedalus Wed Jul 07, 2004 21:11

The fact is that Connolly did not stand for "a republic" he put forward the demand for a "workers' Republic". He put the emphasis on WORKERS republic. Connolly and the Irish Citizens stood for a workers state where the economy would be owned and controlled by the working class.

Sinn Fein are NOT the inheritors of Connolly's ideas. Provisional Sinn Fein split with the more left leaning Official Sinn Fein (later the Workers Party) on the question of "Labour must wait". Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and everyone else in SF are not in favour of working class liberation rather they favour "national" liberation- liberation of irish capital.

by historian Wed Jul 07, 2004 21:21

I suggest that you do some research as the reasons had nothing at all to do with OSF being more left wing

by Tom Shelley Thu Jul 08, 2004 05:11 Boulder, CO USA

Although it's been a while since I've read up on this, based on past reading of Coogan's "The Troubles," McCann's "War and an Irish Town," Farrell's "N. Ireland: The Orange State," and miscellaneous other sources, it seems like there were 3 major reasons for the split.

1) From what I've read, a major motivation for the founding Provos WAS hostility towards socialism.

2) The National Question. What would become known as the Officials were seriously ignoring the national struggle and were talking about taking any seats they could win in STormont and working for democracy within the six-counties.

3) After Aug. 1969, the fact that the IRA had basically disarmed (earlier in the 60's) and was unable to defend nationalist areas, that fueled the split. I suspect that this was what motivated what would become a majority of Provos to join PSF and PIRA instead of the Officials. That is, I imagine most Provos were motivated by this reason and #2, not #1.

Although SF is a multi-tendencied and anti-imperialist organization (anti-imperialist struggles do tend to attract people across classes and the political spectrum) their members are overwhelmingly working-class and/or socialist.

A couple more notes on the split:

1) In one book (McCann's I believe) I read that the Officials adopted a stagist strategy in the late 60's and stuck to it like glue. Stage one was democratization of NI, stage 2 was a united ireland, stage 3 a socialist republic, and they didn't want to TALK about stages they hadn't gotten to yet- so, alleges McCann, they didn't combine advocacy of civil rights with calling for a united Ireland and socialism (which was largely what Bernadette Devlin, Farrell, and People's Democracy did).

Actually, that's all I got,

Tom

by Labour lover Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:01

Many social workers work week-ends and nights. Usually dealing with emergency care orders, abuse, hospital trauma, families in crisis etc. etc.

You should think twice before putting down a while profession

Labour gets votes form all sections of society but still remains strong in working class areas as demonstrated in the last local elections. If representing the WC was the prime measurement of being on the left then Fianna Fail would be right up there

by historian Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:42

Provos cited the attempted takeover by the movement of individuals from the CPGB and opposition to Stalinist totalitarianism NOT socialism and rededicated themselves to a 32 County Socialist Republic as passed at 1967 Ard Fheis.

PS. Allegations regarding infiltration by CPGB elements was true.

by Andy Thu Jul 08, 2004 13:19

You really ought to learn to read Labour Lover. A social worker (as in one social worker) who happens to live in relative comfort in middle class suburbia is not a slight on ALL social workers.

You have (intentionally) missed my point - The Labour Porty is detached altogther from the working class. It cares about the Working Classes as a 50's catholic cares for the black babies.

by Vlad Thu Jul 08, 2004 13:41

Stephen Dedalus's post re Sinn Fein is complete and utter rubbish. He either knows nothing about Sinn Fein and republican history or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
The split had absolutely nothing to do with opposition to socialism. It had everything to do with a republican leadership pursuing a totally reformist path, running down the military capacity of the IRA, that organisation's unpreparedness for the events of August 1969 in the North, the issue of abstentionism, and opposition to all of the above from many members of both Sinn Fein and the IRA in all parts of the country. There was also concern that the leadership was increasingly pursuing a doctrinaire Moscow-proofed style of internal organisation an advocacy of a Stalinist bueracratic style of socialism which was not popularly supported and would have the effect of alienating supporters. The leaders of what was initially known as Provisional Sinn Fein were not opposed in any way to socialism and re-dedicated the party to the establishment of a socialist republic. As the party developed in the 1980s it moved to deepen its commitment to socialism and rei-terated on countless ocassions that it subscribed to a 32-County democractic socialist republic.
Sinn Fein's most recent election slogan was 'Building an Ireland of Equals' meaning a socialist Ireland. The party in Leinster House has launched a document on property ownership called 'The Land for the People' which is advocates clearly socialist policies regarding the issue land, property, housing etc. The party belives in the widest possible public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It will also be interesting to see what other socialists in Europe think of Sinn Fein when the two new MEP's take their seats as opposed to the home-grown, so-called leftist SF bashers on this site.
By the way Stepehen I specifically said that both Connolly and present day Sinn Fein were committed to a SOCIALIST republic so I don't know how you missed that and tried to draw a contradiction between republic and socialist republic.
Sinn Fein is anti-imperialist AND socialist. Both go hand in hand and you can't have one without the other.
GO BACK AND READ CONNOLLY!

by Frank Ryan Thu Jul 08, 2004 13:49

"the ultimate objective of a socialist republic."

Read what was said Stephen and not what your prejudicial eyes decided to interpret!

by GeorgeGilmore Thu Jul 08, 2004 14:00

Sinn Fein also stand for a "state where the economy would be owned and controlled by the working class". So what's your point Stephen?
Sinn Fein are CLEARLY the inheritors of Connolly's ideas. Provisional Sinn Fein did NOT split with the what you call "more left leaning" Official Sinn Fein (later the Workers Party) on the question of "Labour must wait". What utter CRAP! Do you really think that you can have working-class liberation without national liberation?

by Pat Breen Thu Jul 08, 2004 14:09

Nice one Andy. I take it that your spelling of Labour Porty was intentional. I think in it's own way it captures evreything that's wrong with Labour. They are middle-class in membership, values and intent. They cannot connect to much of the working-class. The thing is that they seem to have become relatively resigned to this reality themselves. They reckoned some time ago that large swathes of urban working-calls areas don't vote, that other swathes were too politically angry and unpredictable from a Labour point of view and could be written off as Sinn Fein areas. None of this caused undue alarm because they reckoned the SF vote from such areas would peak at about 9% or 10%. Labour wanted to move more into the middle ground to appeal to people in the middle-class who they knew actually did vote and who weren't overly politically alienated. What they are now concerned about is the extent and acceleration of SF's rise. I think they should be made to worry more.

by Rosary Bead Watch Thu Jul 08, 2004 14:11

SFuppies are about. Don't you just love the home grown brand of SPuppies.
Or could it be the one sad inheritor of the 'rosary beads in one hand, armalite in the other' using different aliases.

by Vlad Thu Jul 08, 2004 14:23

And who the fuck are you? what are you on about 'roasy beads and armalites' ? Could to explain this further. And if its meant to be some bizzarre isnult to Shinners, it looks like they are growing in number. Rather than one sad inheritor I'm afraid you'll have to come to terms with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands. Stop living in fantasy land. Look at the election results and weep. You are the sad bastard!!! Stick your childish 'ALERT, ALERT' where the sun don't shine - LOSER!

by Rosary Bead watch Thu Jul 08, 2004 14:31

Ah you are so sexy when angry. I'd prefer if you were the one sticking me with the alert alert where the sun don't shine.

by Vlad Thu Jul 08, 2004 15:03

Forget your conspiracy theories Rosary Bead Watcher. You must be the religious one if you believe in the Holy Trinity. So maybe you should look in your own drawers for rosary beads. Oh Dear! I said 'your drawers'. This should not lead to more juvenile sexual inneundo posting from you. It's not that kind of site! By the way I'm not angry at all, just very mildly amused. But I am sexy!

by seedot Thu Jul 08, 2004 17:18

The proposition that the PIRA was a right wing split from the Officials is fairly standard - for example Justin O'Briens 2000 book on the Arms Trial gives one account. He proposes that initially the PIRA was supported by FF as a means of stopping the Officials who had become active in Dublin in the 1960's. Of course allegiance was quickly shifted to the SDLP once the PIRA proved to be beyond the control of Military Intelligence. Interestingly, Anthony Coughlan of the National Platform was, along with Roy Johnston, one of the 'Communists' who briefed the Official wing in the mid 60's.

Abstentionism was an issue as was the lack of preparation in the North for defence in 69 but the following statement (from the Justin O'Brien book) by Cumman na Bann on 25/1/70 shows it was in part a rightward split.

"An Army Council which advocated entry into Leinster House, Stormont and Westminster and promoted an extreme form of socialism, forfeited the right to speak for the republican movement. Therefore we consider the Provisional Army Council to be the true voice of Republicanism.'

Also, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the issue it would be a contribution to Indymedia if you could calm down your tone - as others are attempting to do.

by Stephen Daedalus Thu Jul 08, 2004 17:21

Sinn Fein are a nationalist populist party. Socialists believe in mass movements of the working class. SF supported terrorists tactics that divided workers inside and outside Ireland and put emphasis on a tiny elite to achieve "national liberation"

Socialists are not Nationalists. SF are a nationalist communal party. They make no attempts whatsoever to appeal to the Working Class in Northern Ireland that are protestents.

Socialists are Internationalists. Sinn Fein have a very nationalistic outlook on the world. Their only international links are with similar groups in Basque, Palestine etc. These "links" are really self serving and try to legitimate domestic tactics such as terrorism.

Socialists build international class unity. Sinn Fein have deliberately alienated the British working class and working class protestents over the past 30 years. They defended bombings in British working class areas that were designed to kill British people.

Socialists do not engage in "pragmatic politics". Gerry Adams MP said at a recent business dinner that SF were "pragmatic" and will engage in compromises with privatisations, bin tax, hospital closures etc. In Sligo getting the Mayor position was done in exchange for Bin Tax. In Tallaght one councillor called for payment of bin tax. In the North the Health and Education Ministers closed hospitals and implemented neo-liberal policies in Education.

Socialists to not take money off Corporations. Sinn Fein receive substantial donations from business. For example Coca Cola gave them €5000 recently- in return they opposed coke boycotts in Irish universities. In the USA "friends of Sinn Fein" raises thousands for them. Why do they get this cash? Because they are a safe pair of hands and are "pragmatic" about politics.

by Sean Russell Thu Jul 08, 2004 17:26

As both Frank and George have decided to asairi amach aris just for some balance I have decided to make myself known.

I come from a little known section of the republican movement who are ambigous about my nationalism, vague about the type of Republic i desire and have often veered towards national chauvinism.

I am not all that surprising Pearse, Plunkett, O'Connell and my favourate - Mitchell (whats wrong with slavery?-sure itl boost the economy) and after my time - (blessed) Sean South, Dathi and Ruari, the latter two founders of the PIRA.

A bit of the olu readin (from the non approved section) would give yis a better grasp of the extent of diversity in what is commonly called the republican movement-

rebel heart - kevin toolis

dirty war- martin dillon

political murder in northern ireland- Martin dillon

killing rage - eamon collins.

btw - is the rosary not said at Bodenstown anymore?

by Vlad Thu Jul 08, 2004 17:54

rebel heart - kevin toolis

dirty war- martin dillon

political murder in northern ireland- Martin dillon

killing rage - eamon collins.


If this is your reading list in regard to updating your knowledge of the republican movement you display a gross ignorance and political naivete. Martin Dillon is bitterly partisan and anti-republican. He is no more than a British stooge. As for the late Eamon Collins- c'mon he acted as an informer against the IRA. So don't expect anyone to take you seriously. If you think the rosary is said at any Bodenstown commemoration connected with Sinn Fein you are an even more ill-informed wanker than your reading list suggests.

by Vlad Thu Jul 08, 2004 18:03

Stephen as usual you are completely wrong yet again. Sinn Fein supported the boycott of Coca Cola!
By the way what party do you support? It would be most enlightening to find this out as we could all then subject your preferred party to political scrutiny on this site and see how they measure up. I'm afraid you are another typical 'hurler on the ditch' who actually deludes themselves by believing that Sinn Fein or anyone else actually gives a shite as to whether their strategies meet wih your approval. Who do you think you are some font of revolutionary knowledge? Get some treatment for delusions of grandeur! And get your facts right!

by Tom Barry Thu Jul 08, 2004 18:10

Stephen. SF get cash from the States from individuals not because they are a "safe pair of hands" but because they receive support from hundreds of thousands of Irish emigrants who oppose the politics of the Free state parties which often forced them to emigrate and they oppose British rule in the North. Your micro-left, infantile begrudgery is showing- pull up your pants Stephen!

by Marion Price Thu Jul 08, 2004 18:12

"The present day 'equality agenda' is merely a pseudonym for a civil rights strategy. Those who advocate and support this approach should be honest with their followers and supporters, a large percentage of who are too young to remember the political events of the 1968/1970 period. Along with the National Liberation Front concept the then leadership of the Republican Movement, individuals such as Cathal Goulding, Tomas Mac Giolla and Sean Garland, advocated the launching of a civil rights campaign in the North in order to destabilise the 6 County State and fragment unionism. The people who formed the Provisional IRA totally rejected this strategy. More than 30 years later, after decades of untold suffering, hardship and sacrifice, the Provisionals are implementing a strategy previously cast aside and have gone much further down the Workers' Party road, and, in the words of Francie Molloy, "are prepared to administer British rule for the foreseeable future."

by Bernadette Devlin McAllisky Thu Jul 08, 2004 18:17

"Step back a minute and ask ourselves: what this was, what it is all about? I mean, if all we wanted was to help the unionists share power in the Northern Ireland Assembly, why didn't we democratise Ulster when Cathal Goulding asked us to? They were all there, this is not a new idea (and Cathal Goulding had better politics, if you don't mind me saying so, when he was attempting to share power!) But if that's what we wanted to do, why didn't we do it before 30 years of conflict and dying and killing and going to prison all happened? Why didn't we do it then? If that was all that we wanted-was to share power with Fianna Fáil in the South of Ireland, what was the difference between sharing the power now, Fianna Fáil now, and sharing power with Cumann na nGaedheal then? What did we fight the Civil War for, if we were prepared to administer shared power in a partitioned state within the social order imposed upon us by the British government? So never mind what did we fight this war for, what did we fight the Civil War for? Why didn't we listen to poor old Michael Collins? Because we're not saying anything different than he said then."

by Vlad Thu Jul 08, 2004 18:18

Calm my arse. It would help if you went and fucked yourself! The IRA was a CIA plot? Get a fuckin life. Is that why hundreds of thousands spent years in jails North, South and yes in America? C'mon do you think you are the only one who reads history or politics? Its the titles you are reading and giving credence to which is the problem. This idea of the Provos being an FF invention to stave of the revolutionary Stickies is a completely discredited piece of Stickie self-promotional propaganda.

by Rosary Bead Watch Thu Jul 08, 2004 18:19

Too young to remember the rosary at Bodenstown?

by seedot Thu Jul 08, 2004 18:56

so the Cumman na mBann quote is incorrect?

Everybody elses reading is incorrect?

Abuse will convince us all?

by Stephen Daedalus Thu Jul 08, 2004 19:11

"Vlad" and "Tom Barry" have not even attempted to refute my arguments. One of them makes a point about the Coke boycott. In UCD Sinn Fein members had to be removed from the Campus as they were interferring in the referendum with anti-ban literature! Just weeks before Sinn Fein got 5,000 off Coca Cola!!

One of them then tries to say that the US money is from the Irish Wild Geese! This argument shows up their nationalism. The world is seen through green tinted glasses. For Sinn Fein it does not matter who you are so long as you have Irish Blood. Rich US business men? why not take their cash so long as they've got long lost Irish relations in the Old Country.

Sinn Fein do not analyse the world along class lines. Rather it's by nationality. This thought allows them to kill British working class people in shopping centres, This thought allows them to kill protestents, This though allows them to accept money of big business as it's "Irish" corporate donations.

by mr bloom Thu Jul 08, 2004 19:41

This thread is about Conor Cruise O Brien rejoining the Labour party and bringing it closer to Hell on account of him not getting the proper permission to begin his academic career from the late Archbishop +Mc Quaid and limited co.
There are loads of threads on-

Coke.
Coca cola.
Cocaine.
who funds Sinn Fein
why did the Bin Tax campaign not become a "force to be reckoned with"
why did the anti War campaign not become
a "force to be reckoned with"
why did the anti-Treaty side not become a "force to be reckoned with"
why did clann na tamhlachta not stay a "force to be reckoned with"
et cetera...
Now I'm going to bring it back on track-

Has Dr O'brien made any definitive statements on disregarding the teachings of the RC church to the Irish Labour Party?

by lev kamenev Thu Jul 08, 2004 21:03

I asume that you are some variety of Marxist?

If so then you are under some misapprhension that the rpublican movement's rejection of this murderous ideology signifies that it is somehow reactionary?

Well, as an Irish republican I am proud that we rejected Marxist totalitarianism.

The Irish revolutionary tradition - represented by the RM - does not need to justify itself to the supporters of an ideology that murdered hundreds of millions

by Paddy X Fri Jul 09, 2004 02:20

Comrades Price and McAliskey are undoubtedly people of great integrity and commitment. But what would they have had Adams and McGuinness do? Because the IRA was unable to oust British imperialism from Ireland should they have slunk off to the back alleys of Belfast and the hills of Kerry, and left politics to their middle-class 'betters' of the SDLP and FF, FG. Labour etc? That they did not do so has changed the political prospect in Ireland. SF has mobilized the energy of the Irish dispossed and they remain the best hope for the re-conquest of Ireland. They have already forced FF to veer to the 'left'. Do comrades Price and McAliskey have a better alternative?

by BS watch Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:17

"They (SF) have already forced FF to veer to the 'left'."

Is this on an alternate universe? What signs can you point to Paddy X, what signs?

by josephine Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:20

And what exactly does FF veering to the 'left' entail?

But thanks anyway Sinn Feiners coz its obviously a good thing right?

by Jack - Russell Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:32

Sorry vlad you are mistaken. E Collins broke under interogation (for over a week) by the brits.
Unless SF/RA has radically changed its tune, according to them, collins would have been physically tortured, deprived sleep, and physchologically tortured as well.

Collins RETRACTED his statement in court. Therefore its obvious that he cannot be described as an informer in the same sense as S O'Callaghan.

This is typical of Provo revisionism. Stop

by lev kamenev Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:00

Good points Paddy but they will be lost on the ultras on this site who think that politics is some sort of playstation showdown between the forces of good and evil.

Some of you "Marxists" could do worse than read some of the revisionists like Kautsky and Bebel who were dealing with the realities of life as they then were (Germany late 19th/early 20th centuries) in the interests of the people they represented rather than sitting around cafes in Vienna hatching a conspiracy that was responsible for unleashing most of the horrors of the last 100 years.

by Rosa Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:28

"Some of you "Marxists" could do worse than read some of the revisionists like Kautsky and Bebel who were dealing with the realities of life as they then were (Germany late 19th/early 20th centuries) in the interests of the people they represented...."

First things first Lev, I wouldn't trust anyone who married a trot'.
I suppose some of the realities that they were dealing with was the need to pit the workers of Europe against each other, ultimately leading to the pointless slaughter of World War I, all in the name of protecting small nations. But then Lev I suppose pitting worker against worker in the name of national chauvinism might not be much of a problem to you and your ilk.

by lev kamenev Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:49

Is that you Andrei ? Brings me back to the cellars of the Lubyanka ..... I suppose you will be calling for me to be shot like a rabid dog next?

Says it all really Rosa. Millions of workers were slaughtered by imperialism in WWI; millions were slaughtered by Marxists from 1917 up to the present - once upon a time it was possible to beleive that there was some higher value to being murdered in the Lubyanka than at the Somme .... only an imbecile could beleive that now

by Rosa Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:57

I don't have any truck for the slaughter of people in the name of Marxism but it was you who called Kautsky a realist. Kautsky supported the First World War. History check - that was before the Revolution in 1917.
Perhaps you support Kautsky because he was committed to the fighting the 'auld' enemy?

by lev kamenev Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:26

Yes - he did vote for the war credits but within a year had realised the brutality of what was taking place and withdrew from the SPD.

I was more referring btw to the way in whcih he beleived the working class movement needed to adapt to legality and electoralism and his theoretical work on colonialism, racism and anti-semitism.

I am not a Kautskyist by the way! He is an historical figure but one who has as much if not more relevance to current problems than the likes of Lenin and Trotsky who derided him.

by Rosa Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:49

Just for the record Kautsky didn't leave the SPD within a year. He reluctantly left the SPD in 1917.
FWIW this is what he had to say about the threat of fascism in Germany in 1934 "we should guard against overestimating the superiority of Hitler's power", and that when capitalist democracy is threatened, "we do not in any way regard ourselves as driven to the necessity of answering the destruction of democracy by an armed insurrection."
As to your earlier reference to cafes in Vienna it might be worth pointing out to you that Kautsky lived there from 1924 to 1938 and I'm sure he had a better knowledge of them than others.

by lev kamenev Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:56

He was opposed to the war by 1915.

Anyway, you say you don't support the slaughter of millions in the name of Marxism so not sure why I'm arguing with you as my original point concerned Stephen who obviously is a Marxist and not you!

by Rosa Fri Jul 09, 2004 13:01

Oh but I am a Marxist. Wasn't Lev?

by lev kamenev Fri Jul 09, 2004 13:26

oh he was! - and he died with a bit of dignity compared to some of the other scum that fell victim to the terror that they had helped to create.

So, if you are a Marxist do you defend what was done in the name of that ideology in the Soviet Union and elsewhere after 1917?

by Rosa Fri Jul 09, 2004 13:30

No

by lev kamenev Fri Jul 09, 2004 13:36

There are many Marxists who are trying to understand what happened in the 20th century but there are too many who fall back on the simplicities peddled by the likes of the SWP and SP about everything being fine until Stalin came to power. That is probably even worse than the small body of opinion that defends Stalinism, and makes no contribution to either understanding what happened or discovering how left-wing ideas can retain their validity.

by Lev watch Fri Jul 09, 2004 13:38

Did you support Enniskillen, Teebane, Le Mon hotel, Birmingham, Guildford bombings etc, etc in the name of republicanism (or should I say in the name of a Stormont power sharing executive with the intention of implementing British rule)?

by lev kamenev Fri Jul 09, 2004 13:53

No I would not defend any of the above - killing British soldiers no problem. Point is that not only the IRA direct its campaign against military and state targets but it also had the political and dare I say moral courage to stop.

Too many Marxists still live in denial, especially concerning the reasons for the mass murder that has characterised ALL Marxist regimes from the very beginning, including the period from 1917 - 1924 when Saints Vladimir and Leon were in power. Trotskyism in partiuclar has no analytical tools or theory as to why the same thing would not happen again in the future if another Marxist regime came to power.

by Vlad Fri Jul 09, 2004 15:35

No! Jack I won't stop. Eamon Collins went to the courts in Dublin to give 'evidence' against people whom the Sunday Times decided to felon-set as IRA members. Either he is setting up innoent people which discredits what he has to say or else he IS an informer. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT! TYPICAL PRO-BRIT REVISIONISM- STOP IT. I see the rest of your anti- SF, ant- republican, pro-imperialist 'socialist' buddies have gone off a typically irrelevant tangent about shite that has fuck all to do with Ireland 2004. Don't worry others will get on with actually creating a 32-County Socialist Republic while you guys engage in mutual masturbation!

by Vlad Fri Jul 09, 2004 15:47

I couldn't be arsed wasting my time trying to convince people like you who belong to an tiny political sect about as relevant as the Moonies about anything! I only engaged with you in a few moments of spare time for my own amusement. You are very amusing in your quaint, impotent irrelevancy. I only get serious with people who have serious politics!

by Frank Ryan Fri Jul 09, 2004 15:59

While I agree with your disdain for the infantile disorder which presents itself as politics by the Trots on this site I would point out that I believe there are Marxists in SF. Whether SF is a Marxist as an organisation however is a different question.

by Interested Fri Jul 09, 2004 16:30

Brian Keenan is a Marxist and Rose Dugdale (I think)!
Are Gerry and Martin even socialists?

by R B W Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:09

You might get your knickers in a knot about Collins but what about Scap? He's still walking about. What about all the innocent volunteers blood on his hands?

by G. Plant Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:15

What do you mean- what about him? Why don't you go and take some action against him if you feel so strongly about it. Who is stopping you?

by RBW Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:18

Consistency - ever heard of it? No point getting your knicker in a knot about Collins if you don't respond similarly to Scap.
BTW - I don't have my knickers in a knot about Scap.
Vlad-Ryan-Gilmore is a Plant another alias?

by RBW Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:23

That should have read I don't have my knickers in a knot about Collins.

by G. Plant Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:26

Look, I'm talking for myself not any of the others contributors you claim are aliases for the same person, Ok? I don't have my knickers in a knot about anyone or anything. However you seem to be demanding something be done abuout 'Scap'. all i said is go do it yourself if your so interested!

by seedot Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:26

Hi Vlad,

I'm fascinated to know the particular micro-sect you believe I belong to.

Your annoyance with me seems to be because I posted an quote from Cumann na mBann bemoaning the 'extreme form of socialism' then prevalent in the Official IRA and asked you to calm down.

I did not express any political beliefs, criticise your party or even say that a rightward split from the increasingly stalinist Official movement in 69 / 70 was a bad thing for the Republican Movement or irish politics. I just asked you to consider some evidence.

I am quite surprised by your lack of control , poor language and incoherent arguments. Those members of SF that i have met and debated politics with always struck me with their professionalism and obvious commitment - which i would posit is the reason for their reason electoral results rather than any nonsense about where they fit on a political spectrum that has generally been an irrelevance in Irish politics.

But since you seem content to leave bile, ignorance and insults as the impression that readers will get of Sinn Fein supporters perhaps my admiration has been misplaced. I would ask again that you consider the atmosphere your particular form of aggression therapy has on Indymedia - which is something that I quite like and work on.

yours

C.

by RBW Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:33

My points were addressed to Vlad?

by Vlad Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:43

I never said I was in SF or had anything to do with SF. Again further evidence of your presumptions about republicans or socialists who may not share your view of the world. Nothing I say should have any bearing on what you or anyone else thinks of SF members. Nice to see you get on with Shinners but as far as I'm concerened irrelevant also. Whatever about 'bile' and 'insults', which you are well capable of yourself, you have shown me no evidence of my own or others 'ignorance'. Don't take all this too seriously seedot. The cut and thrust of political argument is sometimes intense and sharp. As I said earlier I find this exercise amusing. Realx! Maybe we should have done this over a pint instead. Fucking computers!!!

by seedot Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:51

When i read over the thread.

Still reckon netiquette would add to things.

;-)

by Vlad Fri Jul 09, 2004 17:54

Other than media stories, driven apparently by British Intelligence, I know little about Scap and care even less. What's your beef about that anyway/ To be honest I'm not that interested in the Eamon Collins shite either, but I think it's laughable to use his writing as credible or authoritive reference material on the Republican Movement ok?

by seedot Fri Jul 09, 2004 18:12

I've only ever posted here as seedot (maybe other names on other threads, but generally stay to seedot, and definitely within a thread).

I know v. little about scap etc. and don't have any real beef. I only referenced the Justin O'Brien book - and that was to source a quote that I gave rather than rely on his arguments .

Quick question though - SF has struck me as the sort of broad church that most post-national struggle movements are, yes with marxists within its ranks but also with many others. Do you think it will be possible to retain this feel as more light is put on economic and social issues rather than just constitutional? I would see huge possibilities in the party - but god knows where it could end up. At some point it will have to reconcile the Dublin activists and the rural traditionalists - do you see this happening soon? Will coalition be possible witout doing this?

by obvious Sat Jul 10, 2004 18:14

lets face the harsh truth that with the demise of FG goees hand in hand the demise of the labour party( of which they only have themselves to blame, despite the fact that all Labour members have tons of excuses as to why they do not succeed at the polls. Swallow the pill my friends that your party has failed you and has no support base in the country, the time ahs gone when it was even possible to build this support base ). Sinn Fein (whom i do not trust one iota) will be whether one likes it or not the main opposition party at the next general election. The best thing for all members of apparent left political parties is to accept this and build a colition against the far right politics of FF and PDs.

by SAnity Watch Sat Jul 10, 2004 19:14

'lets face the harsh truth that with the demise of FG '

On this planet FG made a massive recovery in both the Euro and LOcal elections.

'goees hand in hand the demise of the labour party'

On planet Earth, Labour also improved their position especially in Dublin. Are you talking about elections on another planet or in an altrnate universe?

by Ivor armilite Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:18

never mind Rosie, Brian, Gerry and the rest, I wonder is multimillionaire, rancher, oil magnate and general entrepreneur, SLAB "the border magpie" a socialist?

by Sam Tex Mon Jul 12, 2004 13:46

Don't you know under the new handbook for New SF (the terrorist/socialist lite version) members the word socialist is now to consigned to the dustbin of history. From here on it is an Ireland of Equals - everybody will have the same equality to exploit. If your not in, you can't win.

by Vlad Mon Jul 12, 2004 17:31

Re the mix up - I was replying to somebody called BTW about the Scap business, not yoursef. In relation to your other question I think SF has already developed beyond being a broad church of nationalists/anti-imerialists and that it has for some time followed an agenda towards a socialist republic. Of course the party contains thousands of non-Marxists within its ranks. That's only natural considering the objective conditions in Ireland in which the party has developed over the decades. As the party grows its socio-economic policies inevitably come more under the spotlight rather than the constitutional- witness today's Irish Examiner. However I think that you are mistaken to believe that rural SF members are inevitably more conservative or 'traditional' than their colleagues in Dublin- witness various motions to Ard Fheiseanna from cumainn in Sligo, Cork, Galway etc. SF now has more votes in the South than in the Noth People don't join the party down South cos the Brits are kicking in their front doors. They join as much for the party's radicalism at a local level as for the policy on national liberation. The growth area for the party is now the South. They are eating into FF and LP votes in working class areas so obviously they will want to raise their profile on the issues that attract these votes- social and economic radicalism. FF still get nearly two thirds of working clas votes so there's a lot more still to be won. I don't think coalition government would be in SF's interest at this point in time. You need to have a lot of detail on your policy to negotiate something that could deliver for working-class people if you are going into an arrangement with a stronger, bigger conservative party. They should rule it out for now. Down the line? Mmmmm..... The reality is that there is never going to be any other type of government in the South bar coalition of one type or another. Any Left party would have to weigh up the pros and cons of each situation as it presented itself and weigh up whether it would damage the party or damage the prospects of future socialist advances. It should never be elevated into a principle otherwise the party would rule itslef out of government for all time and what use is that to the people it represents? Too hypothetical for now.

by Dolours Price Mon Jul 12, 2004 18:28

I spend a considerable amount of time rummaging through my head. I come up with bits and pieces, some make me happy, others make me sad, and some make me downright angry, and I mean angry. The reader will know; I think we all rummage.

Last night, when sleep eluded me, I came up with a memory of the night we, as "the Republican Family", were called to meet in the Roddy Mc Corley club to be told why the ceasefire was to be. I say 'to be told' because it was being 'told', no-one had ever asked me to cast my vote 'yea' or 'nay'. We were to be given the opportunity to ask questions after the telling; it would not change the already made decision but it was probably supposed to make us feel that we had in some way 'chosen' what was foregone.

The telling was brief and none too coherent, I still have the picture of the three representatives sitting at the table before us. Funny the seemingly insignificant things that stick in the mind, like the "boys" sitting observing at the back of the room. There was talk about the need to get our people out of prison, the enormous number of Volunteers and innocent people who had died. The usual talk from a tired and confused leadership convinced by their meetings with British diplomatic experts, with rich and sincere and impressive Americans, a President here a Taoiseacht there and a British Prime Minister thrown in for good measure. The Republican leadership were thrown in way out of their depth. Then the truth told as if it were an achievement.

"No deal has been done with the Brits".

I remember thinking,'what? We got nothing?!'

Question-time came and I raised my hand. "Are we being told that with hindsight we should never have undertaken an Armed Struggle, that we should rather have infiltrated (infiltrate was the word I used) the SDLP and taken it over? After all we had no prisoners back then and only a few people had as yet lost their lives? Would that have been the better course of action, was it all a mistake?" I got no answer that night.

Sinn Fein (and I do wish they would change their name just as they have changed their ideology) by their conduct since have given me my answer... a resounding YES.

Yes to Constitutional Nationalism, reformism not revolution (another of those forbidden words!). Yes to joining the establishments, British and Free-State -- remember that the Free-State government are still sending Irishmen to Portlaoise Prison on the word of a Garda Inspector for being members of Oglaigh na hEireann otherwise known as The Irish Republican Army otherwise known as the I.R.A.. I watch it in Green Street Court regularly.

The haste with which Sinn Fein are attempting to jettison their armed past was well illustrated by Mary Lou Mc Donald when she haughtily declared, "there is no whiff of cordite on me!" while being interviewed before the elections. Mary Lou, I also use Chanel no 5.

Do Sinn Fein (you will change the name soon, won't you?) really believe that men died on Hunger-Strike for this defeat? That men walked to the scaffold for seats in Stormont, Westminster (when will you be taking your rightful place there, boys?) and Dail Eireann? That my own aunt lived without hands or eyes with quiet dignity and without complaint for forty years to hear that the tri-colour is lodged in the corner of some office in Stormont. Stormont! The symbol of Republican defeat in 1921? I defy anyone to tell me they did because I will call them liars and hypocrites.

Admit it, lads -- you lost the war; some of us see it as only having lost another battle. You can lose all the battles but only when you surrender do you lose your Soul.

by Paddy X Mon Jul 12, 2004 19:22

To equate revolution with violence is mistaken. There can be political violence which is not revolutionary, and there can be non-violent resistance which is revolutionary. The key question remains: having failed to drive the British out using violence what should Irish republicans do? Because violence over 30 years failed to achieve the Republic is the answer more violence? The leadership and the grass roots of Irish republicanism have said no. Can those who continue to advocate violence be considered revolutionary merely because they believe in violence?

by roger Mon Sep 13, 2004 00:57

Admit it, lads -- you lost the war; some of us see it as only having lost another battle. You can lose all the battles but only when you surrender do you lose your Soul.

When they began murdering women and kids they souls were damned forever!