ISN article on Leon Trotsky

by JH Wed Feb 07, 2007 18:21

good article. I am surprised that it hasn't been responded to. The author should have attched sources for quotes.

by anonymous Thu Feb 08, 2007 23:29

I think the reflection on the anti-war movement is actually an old article rather than a new one. I saw this on the site aeons ago. Doesn't touch on recent developments with AWI etc. at all, which I know the ISN are involved with these days.

by Liam Fri Feb 09, 2007 02:35

I'm sure I read that article ages ago in Red Banner. Could be mistaken but i don't think so.Seems to predate awi coming on the scene.

by Apparat - ISN Fri Feb 09, 2007 16:25

That article may well have been on the site before. The site was overhauled in December, and we are still in the process of putting up old material that may have been lost, etc. Some mistakes have been made, and some confusion has been caused - i.e. on the libcom.org site, some people thought that this image: http://irishsocialist.net/bannerpublications.png was of Marx, Luxemburg, and Parnell!

The Trotsky article is certainly new though - and well worth a read. We hope to keep updating the site with new material on a regular basis.

by Lev B - revolutionary Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:40

The Trotsky rubbish is no analysis its just stalinist crap minus the lies about Trotsky being a spy. The ISN shows its true colours they are stalinists masquerading as revolutuionaries. Real marxists should expose these lies.

by Apparat - ISN - pc Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:59 irishsocialist.net

Lev B has a right to call us:
-Stalinist
-Not Real Marxists
-Psuedo-Revolutionaries

And all the rest, but until he gives any evidential reasons as to why we are (*insert insult here*), he should be ignored for the troll that he is.

How on earth a group with a healthy regard for democratic structures can be labeled "Stalinist" is beyond me.

by Vile Stalinist Hack - ISN Sat Feb 10, 2007 18:31

Lev B has urged “real Marxists” to “expose” the dastardly lies about Trotsky. Well, they are welcome to try, and intelligent feedback is always useful – something Lev appears incapable of offering.

His post is interesting though, as an extreme example of a mentality that’s unfortunately quite common on the Leninist far left. Anyone who actually reads the article in question will see that it’s completely impossible to draw Lev’s conclusions, since every single argument put forward on every single point, from the Kronstadt revolt to the repression of the POUM in Spain, is the exact opposite of what a Stalinist would say.

So it’s not a question of misunderstanding. Lev hasn’t taken things up the wrong way. He seems to have trained himself to be incapable of reading sentences that conflict with his dogma. The logic appears to go something like this – CRITICISM OF TROTSKY + IRISH SOCIALIST NETWORK = STALINISM!!!

It’s a bit like the pro-Zionist trolls who hang around websites like the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” one, trying to bully critics of Israel into silence. They’ve trained themselves to believe that any criticism of Israel from any quarter is anti-Semitic by definition. So if I was to write “it’s totally legitimate to criticise the brutal actions of the IDF in the West Bank, the same points have been made by Jewish critics of the occupation like Illan Pappe, Amira Hass and Gideon Levy”, they would respond “ah ha, we know your game, you want to send all the Jews to the gas chambers, Hitler is your hero!”

Trying to reason with people who think along these lines is a hopeless task. It’s not surprising that the Zionist movement produces people like that, but it’s a real tragedy that Trotskyism has often gone down the same road, Trotsky himself was an important socialist thinker and the movement has also produced a lot of people who have developed radical ideas in interesting directions, so it’s a pity to see latter-day Trotskyists behaving like mindless drones.

In a far more reasonable spirit, JH asked for sources for quotations. Didn’t want to over-burden the article with footnotes, but thanks to the good folk at the Marxist Internet Archive, you can read some of these quotations in the full context; the following links will take you to Martov’s article attacking the Cheka in 1918, Trotsky’s civil war pamphlet “Terrorism and Communism”, the relevant sections of “The Revolution Betrayed”, his 1938 article on Kronstadt and Lenin’s conditions for joining the Communist International:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/1918/07/death-pe...y.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/i...x.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/...5.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/...1.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938...t.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x0...1.htm

The other quotes can be found in two useful little books: Ian Thatcher’s biography of Trotsky (which is fair but critical, published within the last few years, and a lot shorter than Isaac Deutscher’s trilogy), and Maurice Brinton’s pamphlet “The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control”. Both well worth reading if you can lay your hands on them.

by Ark Mon Feb 12, 2007 13:28

There is nothing new in this article by the ISN. It is a rehash of slander and distortions against Trotsky that have been raised many times by Stalinists, anarchists, capitalists and other enemies of Marxism. It is easy to take quotations out of context and distort them to suit you own argument. These lies have been answered many times and I would suggest that people should not waste their valuable time replying in any detail to this article by the neo-Stalinists in the ISN.

by Vile Stalinist Hack Mon Feb 12, 2007 17:27

This is getting pretty comical alright. If it's so easy to expose the "distortions" in evidence here, I suggest some brave "real Marxist" give it a shot instead of huffing and puffing about it. Otherwise we have to assume you have nothing to back up your rhetoric with. Anyone who is capable of independent thought can follow up the links above in a spare half hour, then check out those two books if they have time and can find them, and see if the quotes have been "taken out of context" (the same excuse you often see from uber-Zionists when confronted with inconvenient quotes from Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan or others spelling out the real nature of the Zionist project).

Ironically, the paranoid world view in evidence here (there's a gigantic conspiracy against "real Marxism", stretching from capitalists to anarchists) is very much like the Stalinist view that condemned Trotskyists as "Trotsky-fascists". Ark is obviously beyond rational argument. Trotsky may have been a deeply flawed character, but surely he deserves better than to be celebrated as some kind of infallible cult-messiah by humourless fanatics. I can't think of anything more likely to discredit the man than the shrill outbursts of Ark, Lev B and their ilk.

by Troublette - None Mon Feb 12, 2007 17:33

What concrete evidence, in the form of actions (including supporting and working for Trotskyist election candidates) or publications can you give to show the ISN are neo-stalinist/stalinist etc. etc? If you read the stuff on their website, they seem to reject the whole Bolshevik tradition, including its final degeneration into stalinism.

From what Ive read on Indymedia the only basis for this abuse is that some of them were members of the Worker's Party in the past. Now if they are Stalinists why did they leave? If they are Stalinists why do ex-WP members who are now in the ISN often point out that positions they took in the past were mistaken, something thats rare enough on the left. Seems to me the only link with this stalinist past is that they're willing to admit they were wrong and have learnt from their mistakes.

As for the pathetic responses to an interesting article that I think is a bit too kind to Trotsky, name-calling proves nothing except the lack of confidence of the name-caller.

by Marlboro man Mon Feb 12, 2007 17:43

Ark and Lev B have an agenda with their laissez faire criticism.
Pseudo communists trying to out left the ISN?

Trotsky had the capacity to see his flaws and admit he made mistakes.

Stalin was a dictator obsessed with himself, paranoid with delusions of adequacy and millions perished for it.

I found the article informative and well written. The links where helpful and can be useful to those who might a need little ideological nudge to back up or formulate their own socialist credentials.

by Trotskyite Mon Feb 12, 2007 17:58

While I don't hold the view of others that the ISN are neo-stalinists their article does contain nothing new in terms of the usual distortions about Trotsky. Any quotations plucked out of context can be used to protray a different picture than one intended by the author. Trotsky was such a prolific writer than it is always possible to find something to use.

Saying this I doubt any trotskyist would spend time refuting this article. Many articles have been written in defence of Trotsky's ideas. Run a search. With all due respect to the ISN, there are far more important things to be doing.

by Vile Stalinist Hack Mon Feb 12, 2007 21:34

And again we have the “taken out of context” argument. To repeat – anyone with the time and inclination can follow the links above and read several of the quotations from Trotsky in their full context. They can then judge for themselves whether or not his views have been distorted. You can excuse any statement by saying that it meant something different in the original context. There’s no sign of anyone explaining how and why the quotes were taken out of context, and what Trotsky actually meant. I’m satisfied that anyone who takes the trouble to research the matter will see that there’s no distortion involved here.

If you’re not bothered trying to refute any of the arguments, then why not post a few links to articles defending Trotsky? Let people make up their own minds and see if they find the defence at all convincing. It’s quite true that there’s “nothing new” about many of these arguments, they were first put forward by people like Victor Serge while Trotsky was still alive. The main reason for their longevity is the fact that you can find plenty of evidence to back them up.

I suspect the failure of anonymous critics to produce real arguments in defence of their position is not evidence that they have other priorities; these dedicated cyber-Bolsheviks seem to have no shortage of time for posting on Indymedia, it’s usually only when they have to back up their assertions with evidence that they decide it’s time to move on to more important matters. But at least “Trotskyite” has recognised that the half-baked waffle about the neo-Stalinist ISN should be put to bed. Some kind of progress anyway…

by tom eile Tue Feb 13, 2007 01:18

Please don't get too wound up by abusive trotskyists -you're in good company . When Hugo Chavez announced a few weeks back that he was a Trotskyist he was denounced by all the groups that claim to be Trotskyists -like it was the only thing they could all agree on.Some of those sects have been holding on to the title deeds of Trotskyism for years ;they hate nothing more than the thought of somebody reading Trotsky independently.

by Trotskyite Tue Feb 13, 2007 13:25

As I said earlier, just as the stuff from the ISN is not knew neither are the counter arguments. As earlier advised run a search and read them to your hearts content.

by SFR Tue Feb 13, 2007 13:56

If any of the Trotskyist parties (the socialist party and the socialist workers party right?) ever got into a position of power in Ireland, what would their attiitude to indymedia.ie be? I think the site would be closed down in a matter of hours, but maybe I'm not clued up on the dogma. This is a genuine question.

by Trotskyite Tue Feb 13, 2007 14:00

I think it would have shut down long before out of sheer and utter irrelevence

by Fintan Lane - Irish Socialist Network Tue Feb 13, 2007 14:00

The ISN, as a Marxist organisation, does not situate itself in the "Bolshevik tradition", so the usual Trotsky vs Stalin vs Anarchism vs Whatever ping pong is hardly applicable. The comrade who wrote the article set out to examine Trotsky (a late-Bolshevik incidentally) from a non-Leninist perspective, which, inevitably means something more critical than the hagiography that, unfortunately, some Marxists have become rather skilled at producing.

I think the point was to encourage critical thought, rather than to "have a go" as some posters here seem to believe was intended. Oh well...

by pat c Tue Feb 13, 2007 14:25

"The comrade who wrote the article set out to examine Trotsky (a late-Bolshevik incidentally) from a non-Leninist perspective"

Late indeed. So late he missed the July Days seeing as he only joined the Bolsheviks in August 1917.

Criticism from a non-Leninist perspective should not be viewed as a sectarian attack. Its an analysis, it may differ from the analysis of the disgruntled posters here, but they are not going to impress anyone by simply denouncing it.

Anyway I still enjoy reading Trotsky on Literature & Revolution and his Military Writings are certainly worth dipping into. Speaking of which, I will quote my favourite:

"The British Socialist who fails to support by all positive means the uprising in Ireland, Egypt and India against the London plutocracy - such a Socialist deserves to be branded with infamy if not with a bullet, but in no case merits either a mandate or the confidence of the proletariat."
Leon Trotsky 7 August 1920.

I think Trotsky would have enjoyed The Wind That Shakes The Barley.

by Fintan Lane - ISN Tue Feb 13, 2007 14:33

Just shows you that nobody can be wrong ALL the time! Truth be told, Trotsky, like Lenin, can be quite an instructive read - he was an insightful analyst in many ways. Stalin less so.

by Vile Stalinist Hack Tue Feb 13, 2007 17:11

Oh well, if you don't want to post any links to articles giving the Trotskyist view of Trotsky, here's one by Duncan Hallas (now deceased IS/SWP veteran). It's readable and short enough, anyone who's curious can read it and see whether it addresses the problems raised; I don't think it comes close but make up your own mind:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1970/08/tr...y.htm

by tomeile Tue Feb 13, 2007 17:59

The SWP doesn't claim to be a trotskyist party. It calls itself Leninist and bolshevic ,but repudiates Trotsky's post -1928 defence of the Soviet Union claiming that Stalin's purges in the 1930's constituted an overthrow of the 1917 revolution. The Socialist Party does consider itself trotskyist :it argues that the Soviet Union was a workers' state until the Gorbochev/Yeltsin reforms. (Pat C's quote from Trotsky might therefore embarrass SP ,but not SWP members .)
It might all sound a bit like angels dancing on pinheads, but I think it's important to acknowledge the Swp’s assessment of itself as non- trotskyist .In the same way, ISN claims to be non-Stalinist , despite the Stalinist background of many of its founding members should be taken seriously . To paraphrase Gallileo - they have moved .

by Trotskyist Tue Feb 13, 2007 18:43

"The British Socialist who fails to support by all positive means the uprising in Ireland, Egypt and India against the London plutocracy - such a Socialist deserves to be branded with infamy if not with a bullet, but in no case merits either a mandate or the confidence of the proletariat."
Leon Trotsky 7 August 1920.

Any socialist would support an uprising against Imperialism. However a socialist must also be critical towards backward elements in an anti-imperialist movement. I don't think Trotsky would ever be uncritical of Sinn Féin, the Labour & TU leaders, leaders of IRA, etc. Socialists would advocate the need to overthrow capitalism and not replace it with a Capitalist Pro-Imperialist state that exists today in Ireland. Furthermore the Catholic Church would have to be criticised as would the lack of appeal to Ulster Protestant working class and British working class the SF & IRA leaders offered. Yes, Trotsky would most likely enjoyed Wind that Shakes Barley. But he'd then point out socialists need to raise their own banner to counter Nationalism & sectarian division. The British working class, Northern protestant working class & the rest of the Irish working class have a common enemy - capitalism & the Irish and British states. Last time I checked Pat is not of this belief and thinks that the Irish state is somehow different or slighlty more progressive than the British. Or that the protestant and British working class are somehow slightly more backward.

by ISNer Tue Feb 13, 2007 19:19

Or perhaps Trotsky, if he were alive today, would be a very old man, a card-carrying member of Portmarnock Golf Club and a fan of some arts programme rather than the Six O'Clock News. Who knows? Seriously, Trotsky should be assessed on his record, not on how people today apply and interpret his political thought. Now, if you want to discuss "Trotskyism" and its many facets.............. another time, another story.

by tom eile Tue Feb 13, 2007 19:23

I agree with you about the need to counter nationalist and sectarian division. So, could you please explain what you mean by “the Ulster Protestant working class”

by Ark Tue Feb 13, 2007 22:25

The best reply to Pat C quoting Trotsky out of context should be left to Trotsky himself, if you want to know his views on individual terrorism read the following.

The Bankruptcy of Individual Terrorism by Leon Trotsky (1909)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1909/xx/tia09.htm

by Ark Tue Feb 13, 2007 22:44

"How can the Kronstadt uprising cause such heartburn to Anarchists, Mensheviks, and “liberal” counterrevolutionists, all at the same time? The answer is simple: all these groupings are interested in compromising the only genuinely revolutionary current, which has never repudiated its banner, has not compromised with its enemies, and alone represents the future." - Leon Trotsky.

Leon Trotsky’s - Hue And Cry Over Kronstadt, January 15, 1938

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938...t.htm

by socialist Wed Feb 14, 2007 00:44

So Trotsky offhandingly dismisses what was a genuine revolt by ordinary workers - and that's enough? That's your response to the critique of his anti-democratic leanings? I don't follow. What is your point?

by Vile Stalinist Hack Wed Feb 14, 2007 01:34

Ark, you may not have noticed, but I already put a link to that article on this thread, and quoted it twice in the original article...

by Serge Wed Feb 14, 2007 07:01

That little quote from Trotsky above shows everything that's wrong with Leninism - "all these groupings are interested in compromising the only genuinely revolutionary current, which has never repudiated its banner, has not compromised with its enemies, and alone represents the future" - no wonder these lads are so intolerant, when that's the way they see themselves.

The only true revolutionaries - the only ones who haven't compromised - the only ones who represent the future - jaysis lads you don't half fancy yourselves do you!

Trotsky seems to think that everyone who criticised the Bolsheviks, from Emma Goldman to the White counter-revolutionaries, was part of one grand conspiracy to do down the only pure socialists. I suppose in modern terms, that means everyone from the WSM to the PDs can be damned and lumped together as enemies of the cause. Thanks god this style of politics is dying out fast

by Ark Wed Feb 14, 2007 09:37

Unfortunately for you we are not dying out. To the contrary we are growing fast and have popular support amongst the working class and after the next election we will have at least two TDs. Uncompromising, principled socialist politics wins support - how much support amongst the working class do the rest of you have?

by kissy Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:06

but uncompromised love wins lives & redeems all the damage & hurt that man's materialism has caused. Love does not vote. Love writes no manifesto yet its declarations resound eternally. Why is that socialists did not write of Love? Why that vacuum in the writings from Marx to Lenin, Stalin to Mao?
For in truth, now that we may search the texts at the press of a computer key - these men did not love - they simply made do with being "beloved leaders".

Enjoy your seats - enjoy your uncompromised politics in the chamber of theatrical hypocrisy, others will take love everyday to where it is absent - amongst the rich & poor alike. Love alone will save us. Not love of the abstract un-answering God, nor the most jealous love of "patria" nor even the obsiqious love of "the man" become God, become Satan become Emperor.

by Marlboro man Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:09

What party will thse TD's represent? Or are they independant? Who are they?

I'm only asking because I dont know of any Ultra-Stalinist candidates within any party or as independants.

by Ark Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:15

Kissy,
Not so. Here is one example from Trotsky

An extract from his article:
To The Memory of Sergei Essenin

In our consciences, one thought softens the acute and still fresh pain: this great, this inimitable poet did, according to his temperament, reflect his period and enriched it with his songs, telling, in a new way, of love, of the blue sky fallen in the river, of the moon which, like a lamb, pastures in the sky, and of the never-to-be-repeated flower — himself.

Let there be nothing, in this memory we bring to the poet, that may beat us down or make us lose courage. Our period has a spring stronger than that of each of us, and the spiral of history will unwind till the end; let us not oppose it, but help it, by our conscious efforts of thought and will. Let us prepare the future, let us win for every being the right to bread and song.

The poet is dead, long live poetry!

Defenseless, a child of man has rolled into the abyss. But long live the creative life where, till his last moment, Sergei Essenin braided the priceless threads of his poetry!

L. Trotsky
January 1926

by pat c Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:15

"The best reply to Pat C quoting Trotsky out of context should be left to Trotsky himself, if you want to know his views on individual terrorism read the following."

It wasnt out of context. Trotsky, Lenin and the Comintern supported the IRA in the their struggle against British Imperialism. During the Irish Civil War, the Bolsheviks supported the Republican side.

"The Bankruptcy of Individual Terrorism by Leon Trotsky (1909)"

How could a book written in 1909 (not relating to Ireland) be more relevant than Trotskys writings about Ireland in 1920? Trotsky did not regard the IRA as Individual Terrorists.

"The revolutionary tradition of the national struggle is a precious good."
Leon Trotsky, 6 June 1936. (From his letter to Nora Connolly O'Brien)

Heres Lenin from 1912:

"A home rule bill for Ireland is now going through parliament. But in Ireland there is the Northern province of Ulster, which is inhabited partly by protestants as distinct from the catholic Irish. Well then, the British Conservatives, led by Carson, the British version of our Black Hundred landlord Purishkevich, have raised a frightful outcry against Irish home rule. This, they say, means subjecting Ulstermen to an alien people of alien creed! Lord Carson has threatened rebellion, and has organised gangs of reactionary armed thugs for this purpose."
Lenin On Britain.

by cuddles Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:20

;-) imagine a proper bolshevik writing that sentimental crap.

by pat c Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:24

"Last time I checked Pat is not of this belief and thinks that the Irish state is somehow different or slighlty more progressive than the British. Or that the protestant and British working class are somehow slightly more backward."

What I do think is that the British state is still a (lesser) imperial power. You may have heard of their adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Irish state is a capitalist one and is a junior partner in international capitalism, I have no love for it or any state.

I do believe that the British working class are more backward, as did Lenin & Trotsky (You really should read more). Perhaps you are unaware of Britains Imperial past (and lesser present)?

As for the Protestant/Loyalist working class, I think its unfortunate that they have let themselves be used as fodder for imperialists and bigots for so long. You will see in my previous comment that Lenin had no sympathy for their support for the Unionist cause.

To be honest I would rather they voted for the PUP than the DUP.

by Ark Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:45

Although you may have but it bluntly there is nothing in essense wrong with what you have said regarding Lenin and Trotsky's attitudes towards Ireland. However, it would be wrong to apply what they said in the early part of the 20th Century to the period of history covered by the Provisional IRA's "armed struggle". The political and military campaign (guerilla campaign) of the IRA during the war of independence and the civil war was a very different animal to the campaign carried out by the Provos. Trotsky and Lenin's writings on individual terrorism (both were vehemently opposed to it as a tactic) are applicable to the Provos.

You say, "You will see in my previous comment that Lenin had no sympathy for their [protestants] support for the Unionist cause." You need to read this "quote" a little more carefully. Lenin is attacking Carson and the reactionaries in the UVF who were militarily organising for a sectarian war to stop Home Rule. "...Lord Carson has threatened rebellion, and has organised gangs of reactionary armed thugs for this purpose."
He was not attacking Protestants in Ulster per se. Lenin would never have made a blanket attack on a national, religious or political minority for their political views. If you read Lenin’s extensive writings on the national question you will see that his view was one of extreme flexibility in arguing for a political solution to the problems of the national question that was based on protecting the rights of minorities. The right to self determination for nations, the right to autonomy for minorities and giving the fullest protection to minorities rights in relation to religion, culture, language, tradition etc were the foundation of Lenin’s ideas on the national question. He correctly took the view that compromise had to be the cornerstone of a Marxist approach on the national question in order to prevent conflict and to win over all sections of society to the idea of unity. By giving people the fullest possible national rights as a way to hopefully win them over to the idea of unity. Lenin did not argue for these rights as a way to "con" people – he believed and put it into practice that if a nation or a national or ethnic/religious/political minority wished to exercise their right to independence or autonomy etc that this right must be allowed.

You also say: "To be honest I would rather they voted for the PUP than the DUP." I can see were you are coming from Pat and you probably don’t mean that literally but it wouldn’t be better. It would be better if they were voting for an anti-sectarian socialist party as I hope you would agree.

To Marlboro Man, the two TDs in question will be elected for the Socialist Party, which is a Marxist party in the Trotskyist tradition, not Stalinist. Joe Higgins on many occasions in the media, in the Dail, and at public addresses has spoken of his belief in the ideas and methods of Leon Trotsky.

by Marlboro man Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:53

Apologies Ark through all the meanderings of the thread I got the impression you where a Stalinist.
I take it you are defending the right to form an opinion rather than attacking Trotsky?

Admittedly I gave the thread a cursory glance as I was distracted elsewhere.

Fully aware of the SPs credentials and admire Joe greatly

by socialist Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:57

Trotskyist: "You also say: "To be honest I would rather they voted for the PUP than the DUP." I can see were you are coming from Pat and you probably don’t mean that literally but it wouldn’t be better. It would be better if they were voting for an anti-sectarian socialist party as I hope you would agree. "

I have no time for the politics of the PUP - they're still intimately linked to loyalist death squads and they're monarchists - but the idea that one right-wing party is as bad as another, if that is what you are suggesting, is a bit problematic as a general rule, don't you think? Le Pen or Chirac? The British National Party or the British Conservative Party? Are they really all the same?

Of course we want people to vote for left-wing parties, such as Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party, but we also want to pull people away from extreme right-wing movements. The DUP, in my opinion, are pretty bloody right-wing, so if voters abandoned them, I think I would be pleased.

by Apparat. Wed Feb 14, 2007 18:54

There is a new ISN article posted here:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81026

by Serge Thu Feb 15, 2007 00:52

I suppose back in the 80s when the Workers Party had 8 TDs MacGiolla and Garland told themselves that it was all because of their principled, uncompromising defence of North Korea. If you really think that people who vote for Joe Higgins or Clare Daly are voting for your own special brand of fanatical zealotry, then you’re as deluded as your previous posts would suggest.

One of the reasons people like Joe Higgins is because he has a sense of humour. Try learning from him kid…