Eamonn McCann attacks republicanism

by Larry Latourne Sat Dec 08, 2007 20:23

McCann believes the whigs were radicals. Edmund Burke?
Lord John Russell etc etc? Eamonn's heart is in the right place but his political analysis should not be taken seriously. Gery Lawless and Tony Cliff were his mentors. As for John Palmer he became a bureaucrat in Brussels.

by J. Treacey Fri Dec 07, 2007 21:04

The link is to a piece by Sean Matgamna about SWP(IS) and the events of '68/'69. He cites an article from the SW, by McCann and Gery Lawless, calling for armed intervention from the Dublin government.
McCann, says Matgamna, would later repudiate this article. In any case, as soon as the war began in earnest, support for armed struggle from IS-SWP rapidly collapsed. Matgamna is looking at events from the perspective of his own version of Trotskyism, which differs from that of SWP.
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9693

by larry Healey Sat Dec 01, 2007 19:07

http://socialistdemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/11/eamonn-m....html

by G.D.Flynn - International Republican Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:01 Agrescon at Agrescon dot nl 188 burghsliussingel 3086 vg Rotterdam 0031102102055

I have read your comments,however the Dilutaton of Eires Constitution is the real problem, the Dutch lost theirs, the French are wrestling with theirs,the British lost theirs after losing Cromwell, Tom Paine etc,the greats of the French Mirebeau, Voltaire, Jean Jaques Rousseau,the Social Contract enz ensoforth.The Multinationals ie the Massdrcht treaty was signed by 12 nations, six Republics and six Monarchies, the latest of course is the Artfull signing of the European Constitution which ensures that the Irish Contitution is Subservient to it, and guarantees Eires Oil and Gas deposits, as Oil and Gas is not a Mineral Deposit in the Legal sense of the word,to a few Monarchistic States which is Colonialism in another form , the same stable but a different Horse.Examples include Venezualia, Nigeria,Iraq,etc.along with losing this Eire loses its Indigenous voting rights by sheer volume of the European Immigration numbers, or the Denmarkification,of Land and property ceded to Germany by the purchasing of second third fourth homes, Let alone Eires Neutrality Act, which is now suspect owing to the fact that Oil and Gas is a Military prerequisite, as Eire gas is to be pumped and stored in England and the North Sea. Therefore it follows that the current Constitution needs both ammending, reviewing, enforcing,and applying if this means the creation of an Irish Constitutional Court then get on with it, or Impeachment otherwise we will all lose our Republic, not for ourselves but for our children,s childrens, children. You dont ,fight for Democracy,you build for Democracy, Institution, Constitution,and Republicanism for thats what Democracy is. I remain Yours Respectfully G.D. Flynn, O Flynn The Haque Nederlands

by Patrick Henry Fri Nov 30, 2007 21:04

Maybe you're just churning out the same bile that $inn Feign are presently churning out against the Classroom assistants, the people of South Armagh, the McCartneys and anyone else who opposes them.
Sure they along with the DUP are trying to run the assembly in the same authoritarian way that they run their partys. What the leaders says, goes and anyone not in agreement will be vilified.
$inn Fein's arrogance will be their own out doing as was the case in the South. When the people finally realise that a vote for $inn Feign is no longer a dig at the Paisleyites as was the case until now, they turn on them.

I have no love for McCann or the SDLP but they don't have an active criminal gang of killers lurking in the shadows.

by Daltun Connolly Fri Nov 30, 2007 20:21

After the border campaign republicanism was a spent force. Then at Burntollet the stark terrorism of the British state was exposed to the world. A righteous anger and an insurrectionary energy was created. Nobody could see then that the main beneficiary of that force would be the republican movement. There followed 30 years of (futile?) warfare. The Good Friday Belfast Agreement ended that phase. Any lessons to be learned?
The Unionist academic Lord Bew and his fellow revisionist propagandists see it all as an error, that 1916 should never have happened, just the bewildered delirium of green nationalism. Lord Bew's pupil, Anthony McIntyre along with Ed Moloney and Eamonn McCann have become persistent critics of the Sinn Fein leadership, while at the same time giving credence to the 'dissidents'. The Belfast Agreement is clearly a capitulation, a defeat brought about by the Irish state, the British state, and the United States. Irish republicanism is declared dead.
Moloney sees it as assisted suicide. For Lord Bew and for McIntyre what was resurrected on Easter Monday died on Good Friday. Meanwhile McCann, the hero of Burntollet, is paid by Sir Anthony O'Reilly to write that 'republicanism is the problem'. It seems that even dead Irish republicanism has power. Perhaps a stake should be driven throught its heart.
The imperial objective of Lord Bew and Sir Anthony is to ensure that the Phoenix never rises again. But what is the agenda of McIntyre, Moloney and McCann? Are they doing the work of Lord Bew and Sir Anthony while cynically encouraging the 'dissidents'? Maybe they're just confused.

by KD Fri Nov 30, 2007 18:46

No the Leadership of Provisional IRA sent young people out to an early grave or a long prison sentence. The same people who now sit in a shambles of a Puppet Government pretending the Brits have gone when in fact they are building the Headquarters of MI5 in Holywood.
These people now run the North under Paisley's leadership on behalf of Britian, who are now absentee landlords. The IRA have become a bunch of criminal thugs free to murder anyone who gets in their way or has the courage to stand up to them. WHY? Because the DUP are now satisified with their elevation to Top Dogs and don't want to rock the boat.

by L.Honan Fri Nov 30, 2007 17:53

In the Socialist Review, Oct. 1978, Eamonn McCann wrote;

-We are no longer marching for more 'Civil Rights', but against the root cause of all our political ills: British Domination. Because the main lesson to be learned from the last decade is that the real problem never was the way Britain ran the North. It was the fact that Britain ran the North. And until Britain leaves there'll be no end of trouble.-
Comrade, did these words of yours send out some young men on a path of glory to an early grave or a long prison sentence?

by Patrick Henry Thu Nov 29, 2007 19:42

Raymond is a B-List Shinner always dreaming of sitting up there on the platform with Gerry and Martin during the Ard Fheisanna. Sure even Mary Lou got to sit in that elevated position and who is she? Certainly not a former Hunger Striker because she didn't even know who Kieran Nugnet was. Raymond is merely trying to curry favour with the great ones thus his repeated grovelling referances to them in his statement.
Ah Raymond it seems that you will continue to dream for high places are not for you.

I believe that McCann is nothing but talk but I would love to hear him in a debate with McCartney who would be reduced to gibberish.

by Barry - 32 csm Thu Nov 29, 2007 17:13

Leaving aside Eammons Marxist economic beliefs , unlike Raymond McCartney Eammon McCann patently does not regard those republican seperatists opposed to British parliamentary activity in Ireland as apolitical criminals as McCartney describes them in his felon setting statement .

Furthermore following the recent brutal beating by the British police of 32 csm member and Raytheon 9 defendant Gary Donnelly in Derry which left him with his arm broken in 3 places Eammon went out and protested on the streets of Derry against this action . Raymond McCartneys response was to issue another statement deliberately intended to confuse the people of Derry as to what had happened , and sought to misrepresent the nature of the assault , beating and arrest of a republican . McCartney claimed that only one British policeman should be investigated over the incident ,despite the fact Gary Donnelly had his bones broken by a group of them , and was denied medical attention by another group while a plain clothes operative attempted to make a sinister approach to the injured man . McCartney also described the incident as simply " bad policing" , as opposed to the blatant example of political policing which it undoubtedly was . McCartney chose his words very carefully i9n this regard , and they are an attempt to misrepresent what is going on on the streets of Derry in defence of the British police and the British state in Ireland .
Whatever ideological differences I would have as a republican with Eammon McCann in the integrity stakes hes head and shoulders above the likes of Raymond McCartney .

by R. Currence Thu Nov 29, 2007 16:46

How do Eamonn McCann's views differ from McCartney's?
http://ograshinnfein.blogspot.com/2007/11/major-article....html

by Sceptic Wed Nov 28, 2007 21:55

The idea of a revolution as advocated by McCann in 1969 is not mutually exclusive with his critical thesis of armed republicanism in 2007. McCann came from a labour background and had notions of a Marxist revolution of some kind one presumes, not a republican campaign of violence. Even then surely the man is entitled to vary his views almost forty years later. In those heady days he was a young firebrand. These days he is an older and more reflective character with a bus pass. Moreover unlike in 1969 we have experienced in the interim thirty years of killings by republicans the victims of whom were mainly members of the Irish and British working class. There is no virtue in consistency if the consistency is the wrong cause.

by L. Honan Wed Nov 28, 2007 17:04

In an interview published in the New Left Review, 1969, Eamonn McCann said that Ireland's living revolutionary tradition is republicanism and-"the idea of the revolution is implanted in the minds of the Irish people surrounded by the glory of 1916 and its revolutionary martyrs. The idea of revolution is not at all alien to the Irish working class, as it is to the English, and when one calls for revolution, no matter what one actually demands, there is always a link to Connolly and to 1916 and the armed uprising. What we have to do is to complete the national revolution by making the theoretical and practical link between what we are doing now, and what was fought for in 1916. "
Its a seismic shift from this to say now that republicanism is the problem. What happened? Why the about turn?

by Dudley Harris-O'Brien Mon Nov 26, 2007 18:38

The Longford Lecture delivered in Church House, Westminster, London by Mary McAleese, President of Ireland.
It shows what a great president she is and its really a shame that she wasn't able to vote for herself. Eamonn McCann, although fairly nationalist and republican in the past, now seems finally to be getting it. What was all the struggle for? It was for nothing because it was all based on a misperception of past history.

'Changing History'
Friday, 23 November 2007 19:03

I am delighted and honoured to have been asked to contribute to this lecture series, dedicated to the memory of Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford who, despite three baronies and an earldom, earned the enduring affection of the plain people of Ireland for they recognised in him a greatness of heart for Ireland and a greatness of heart for humanity.

There is a particular serendipity about this occasion for not only did Lord Longford and I share a life-long interest in prisoners but, as a founding member over twenty-five years ago of the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas, I am particularly delighted that Prisoners Abroad has won this year's Longford Prize.

Lord Longford was born into this world at a time when the historically unhappy relations between Ireland and the British Empire were shortly to go through a convulsive and cathartic phase leading to the partition of the island of Ireland. By the time of his death, relations between Dublin and Westminster were the best they had ever been in our respective histories and the Good Friday Agreement had set the scene for a fresh new culture of peace and partnership. Six years on from his death we have all been pleasantly surprised to see how much momentum and traction the peace process has gathered, especially since the return of devolved government earlier this year. These are things that would have brought relief and pride to the man in whose name we are gathered for he was a man of deep faith in the capacity of the human person to change for the better, he was a man who believed in the transcendent power of forgiveness and was not in the least embarrassed to contemplate a world energised and refreshed by the healing power of love or to be demonised as naïve for such a belief.
Advertisement

I first met the late Lord Longford early in my career as an academic lawyer specialising in criminal law. I had arrived early at Broc House in South Dublin for a conference entitled "Mad or Bad." It was a cold day and I had bundled up well, so as I stood in the cloakroom, apparently the first to arrive, I was pleased to be able to hand my heavy overcoat and dripping umbrella to a gentlemanly cloakroom attendant dressed in a morning suit and standing by the rack of empty coat hangers. We shared a few words as he took my things and very graciously hung them up. I did think his face familiar but couldn't place it until the keynote speaker was announced and with that Lord Longford, fresh and apparently none the worse for being mistaken for the cloakroom attendant, took to the stage. I was mortified! He, to his credit when I later apologised, was clearly delighted to be able to say to me that, as I airily handed him my coat, he did wonder which was I - mad or just plain bad.

In that accidental encounter I met Frank Pakenham, the modest man of exquisite good manners, the man of humour, the man whose ego could take any amount of hammering without a loss of humanity, compassion or grace, the man comfortable in his own wisdom and being. It was the 1970s and there was a long road to be travelled to prosperity in Ireland and an even longer road to peace. The south was still a country that young people emigrated from, the north a place of deep hatreds and open, violent conflict. Both were places where the rigid perspective of one generation trapped the next, where change was feared and stereotypes abused.

Here was a man unafraid of change. The Conservative turned socialist, the Protestant turned Catholic, the English Lord of Unionist stock turned Irish nationalist, the distinctly sociable personality who chose the loneliness of causes that isolated him, the Oxford double-first and scholar who routinely had to listen while lesser intellects described him as childish and naïve, the man who relentlessly probed the prejudices of others and held fast to a few of his own. This intriguing man would, I hope, be pleased that the Ireland which he loved so much has today set the scene for a new narrative, a new history, one driven by the energy of this historic and never-before-witnessed confluence of peace, prosperity and partnership.

There are new chapters being written that I am sure Frank Pakenham, the historian and writer, would love to have recorded for, while the vanities of identity never bothered him too greatly, they surely disturbed many others and caused a lot of disquiet. He would, I hope, be reassured by today's Ireland where identity is not an 'either/or' choice, and where we are increasingly relaxed about parallel and interwoven strands of identity, those that the past has bequeathed us and which are a mix of Irish and British, and those which the future is setting out for us with the new immigrant Irish citizens drawn from all over the world. Their children will teach us a thing or three about the mix and meld of identities and cultures.

'History' versus histories
With a new confidence in our future Ireland has begun to look the past in the face. We are prising open the sealed space between historiography and history, a space that had always found it difficult to place men like Frank Pakenham, men and women too whose stories did not fit the conveniently-shaped boxes that have shaped separate and unreconciled narratives of Anglo-Irish matters for so many years. These old narratives are now giving way to a more considered story of our two peoples and, while coloniser and colonised are unlikely ever to stand easily in each other's shoes, we are nonetheless beginning to reveal those stories where we can at least stand side by side.

One powerful such story is that of the significant Irish contribution to the First World War which until recently had been the subject of what has been described as a 'policy of intentional amnesia'. In a remarkably short period of time the 210,000 volunteers from all over Ireland, a majority of them Catholics and Irish nationalists, had been airbrushed into a stark story which recounted on one side only the sacrifice of Ulster Protestants, mainly in the 36th (Ulster) Division and on the other only the heroism of those who took part in the Easter Rising.

Last year for the first time Dublin hosted two commemorative events, one commemorating the ninetieth anniversary of the Rising and the other the ninetieth anniversary of the Somme. The fifty thousand Irish men who died are commemorated in the joint Island of Ireland Peace Park at Messines in Belgium. It was opened nine years ago by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the King of the Belgians and I, and its opening helped to create a platform of shared memory through which we hope to realise the dream of the great Irish intellectual, Professor Thomas Kettle, one-time nationalist MP at Westminster, who died at the Somme fighting with the 9th Royal Dublin Fusiliers:

'Used with the wisdom which is sown in tears and blood, this tragedy of Europe may be and must be the prologue to the two reconciliations of which all statesmen have dreamed, the reconciliation of Protestant Ulster with Ireland, and the reconciliation of Ireland with Great Britain.'

Today, as we seek to effect those reconciliations, a barely-credible narrative, distorted by all sides for political ends is being replaced by a truer narrative which gives all of the people of Ireland a point of common cultural reference, and a shared history to commemorate.

Similarly, and contemporaneously, the history of the Easter Rising in 1916, which has long been the subject of attempted manipulation by different parties in history, is now looked at in a broader light and commemorated in Ireland with confidence, dignity and pride. Forty-one years ago, Lord Longford, then in Wilson's cabinet, caused an outcry by attending the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the Rising where he was photographed beside his friend, President De Valera. Last year, representatives of the British government attended the ninetieth anniversary parade through the city of Dublin. Changed and changing times.

There is a slightly rueful Russian saying, that 'These days we live in a country with an unpredictable past'. The saying holds equally true in Ireland but not in respect of the subordination of historical fact to power and spin. In Ireland, we say it with optimism and excitement, for now we have the confidence that comes from having transcended a cruel history and its lingering long-term consequences. We have made friends, good neighbours and partners of what were once seen as old enemies and we are making peace with our past in order to secure the peaceful, prosperous and inclusive future that we deeply desire for all the children of the island of Ireland whatever their faith, perspective or identity.

As the old, historic vanities are dispensed with and partisan imagery is jettisoned, a new iconography, a new imagery, is needed to depict the promise of our island's bright future.

North-South
A glimpse of that future, of the images that capture in an instant the transformed times in which we live and the complexities that will underpin our common future, is seen in the re-invigorated relations between Ireland North and South. The Taoiseach's meeting with the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley, on the site of the Battle of the Boyne, my own meeting with the First Minister at the Somme Heritage Centre and the First Minister's declaration in Dublin last April that he was proud to be an Ulsterman and proud also of his Irish roots, gave a fresh focus to those thorny issues of identity which have in the past closed Irish people off from one another.

Where previously our history has been characterised by a plundering of the past for things to separate and differentiate us from one the other, our future now holds the optimistic possibility that Ireland will become a better place, where we will not only develop new relationships but will more comfortably revisit the past and find there as Lord Longford did, elements of kinship long neglected, of connections deliberately overlooked.

The launch of the new Northern Ireland Executive government on 8th May this year represented a watershed in political developments on our island, a vital step forward in our journey of reconciliation. No-one underestimates the huge task ahead of the Executive in forging consensus and maintaining collective responsibility across issues that normally divide political parties, nor do we overlook the work that needs to be done finally to eliminate the embedded culture of sectarianism but we also acknowledge that this is a beginning and in the Irish language we have a saying - Tús maith, leath na hoibre - a good start is half the work.

By any test, the Northern Ireland Executive has made a good start. A recent Irish academic treatise posits 'The end of Irish history?' With no disrespect, that is a highly unlikely scenario! We are in fact right at the very start of the most exciting chapter ever in the history of the island of Ireland. It is a work in progress but it is a work making visible progress as hope and optimism cut their way painstakingly through division and rancour. The benefits of this sea change in attitudes cannot be overstated - it has released into Irish society a new mood of dispensation to talk with fresh openness and without fear about things that were once, in some quarters, taboo, in particular the politics of partnership. For those of us who have grown up through the Troubles, the reduction in negativity and the growing generosity of spirit have been little short of miraculous.

The sheer unlikelihood of today's reality in Northern Ireland, where men who were once bitter opponents sit side-by-side in government as First Minister and Deputy First Minister, is a living tribute to Lord Longford's enduring belief in a person's capacity for change and to the inherent power of the Christian capacity for forgiveness, even in the face of horrendous suffering.

People have made compromises and taken risks in order to set a new course for the future and, in truth, never having been so far down the path of peace before, we have few compass points to guide us. Yet we recognise the phenomenal potential, the strange alchemy of this moment and we look forward to seeing the results that will come from the combined genius of Protestant, Catholic, Irish, British, Gael and Ulster-Scots, planter and native, new migrant and old-timer as they focus on what they can achieve together for the first time in our history.

Anglo-Irish Relations
There has never been such an Ireland and many elements have gone into the mix to provoke such encouraging change. One crucial element has probably not received the attention it deserves and that is the seminal role played by the improvement in Anglo-Irish relations.

We two neighbouring jurisdictions have a lot of past to put behind us, yet our once fraught relationship is now healthy, vital, collegial and friendly. Writing in 1985, an Irish historian, Oliver MacDonagh, characterised the different views of history in our two countries with typical pithiness - 'The Irish do not forget and the English do not remember.' This analysis was more than a glib line. In the Irish view of history, MacDonagh suggests 'no statute of limitations softens the judgment to be made on past events, however distant.' In the English, linear view of history, on the other hand, everything moves forward with 'a corresponding diminution of any sense of responsibility for the past'. Not a great combination and a recipe for the mutual mystery we have been to one another for many a long day.

Thirty odd years of chewing the cud together in Brussels has drawn our leaders very intensely into each other's orbit and lessened the mystery. Forty years of dealing with the Troubles has distilled into a formidable partnership expressed brilliantly in the Good Friday Agreement. John Major and Albert Reynolds can take credit for moving us from fraught to friendly. Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair can take credit for putting our relationship on a new footing with the Good Friday Agreement, a document which more than any speaks of a changed history and sets the scene for a radically-altered, better future characterised by a spirit of good neighbourliness and partnership between Ireland and Great Britain.

Our long-interwoven histories, dominated for years by narratives of conflict and conquest, resistance and suppression, have finally been freed of those fetters. The detail and depth of the relationships between our two peoples can finally be explored, and what is common between us, celebrated and harnessed for our future mutual benefit. Our shared membership of the European Union where our two governments interact on a daily basis, has done much to normalise relations, and has, of course, provided immense assistance with the consolidation of the peace in Northern Ireland. It has also, on a mundane, but equally important level, shown, across a whole range of issues, the breadth of the areas on which we agree.

Nowhere, however, is the extent of our commonality better expressed than in the extraordinary depth and breadth of the interpersonal links between our two peoples. Generation upon generation of friends and family, colleagues and comrades, have forged a web of connections which stretches across lines of borders, creed, colour and family.

Notwithstanding our sometimes turbulent history, no two peoples are more closely bound than the British and the Irish. More than one million Irish citizens now live in Britain and, today, more than 100,000 British citizens now live in Ireland where they form a welcome and significant portion of our increasingly cosmopolitan population and a certain guarantee that the relationship will continue to thrive. Their children will draw culturally from many wells, indeed our very own Ambassador to the Court of St James is, of course, himself a Londoner as well as a quintessential Irishman.

The complex mosaic that has resulted from such intricate intertwinings raises interesting questions about identity, about 'them and us' in the British-Irish context. Indeed, the spirit of Lord Longford might well have us asking, without any diminution in terms of respective sovereignty, about the extent to which the peoples of Ireland and Britain can be regarded as strangers to each other at all.

The inevitable co-ownership of cultural ties which these human links bequeath to us is underpinned by quite formidable commercial and trade links between our countries. British exports to Ireland are more than twice its exports to China, India, Brazil and Mexico combined, while Irish exports to Britain represent almost half of our total food exports and a full half of the exports of our indigenous companies.

At so many levels we have, it seems, been getting on famously despite what the scriptwriters of history have been saying. I think Lord Longford always knew that. He knew the gap between perception and reality was huge and that is where he placed himself - in the gap, to be the bridge, to be walked over, tramped over but to be the one who believed that over the bridge there was nothing to fear and much to gain. He was a vital link, a conduit for people and ideas across otherwise unsurpassable obstacles. He would surely see these days as a sacred trust, to be used well and used wisely, in these days of change, of colossal change as we explore the very otherness of others and discover there friends we could have made if only we'd had the courage to peer over history's barricades. For Joyce's Stephen Dedalus, history was "a nightmare from which [he was] trying to awake", but for today's Ireland, the nightmare is over and a new history is in the making. The years of waste are over. In our new history both Ireland and Britain will share pride in that legendary son born of both, Frank Pakenham, Earl of Longford, English politician and Irish patriot, historian and humanitarian, friend of the friendless and champion of change.

by Patrick Henry Mon Nov 26, 2007 15:32

So Big Mac and I are one and the same, a bit like Clark Kent and Super Man? My My how observant of Barry from the 32 csm.
Talking about Super Men, Barry just how are you and your rag tag band of revoluntionarys going to deliver a Socialist Republic when all before you have failed with a lot more than shot guns and crude firebombs?
Like Eamonn Mc Cann you talk a lot but deliver on nothing. What for example has happened to all those jack-in-the-box Republicans, like Concerned Republicans and others who popped up to take on the Shinners during the last elections? They seem to have vanished back to their various bar stools to fight the good fight with pints in their hands. Even Eigiri seems to have gone quiet and I had some hope that they could emerge as a serious challenger to the Sinn Feigners.
Barry stop believing in fairy Tales and start working for the people in your areas who want to live in peace from drug dealers and other scum, then we'll start taking you seriously.

by Hugh Murphy - Sacked by ITGWU and Belfast employers Mon Nov 26, 2007 14:35

Dear Socialist,

You might like to re-read the article in which you claim Eamonn McCann wrote about the Sacked Dockers - you will find IN FACT that he never mentioned the SACKED DOCKERS.

He {rather bravely} highlights the fact that dockers are dying of asbestosis and other asbestos related diseases ONLY after it had been raised in the house of commons.

What he ignores is THE FACT that ITGWU ran the Belfast Docks like a chain-gang for the employers - and broke every Trade Union Principle Larkin and Connolly devised for the protection of workers, by fining the membership large sums of money and making them discharge asbestos and other dangerous cargoes without protection, to save the employers money. When some dockers objected, they were sacked - myself included.

As stated previously, I sent Eamonn McCann the proof of this travesty of trade unionism, but he, like Joe Higgins chose to ignore it.

SOME SOCIALISTS.

Actually, I'm about to put in the post, a letter for the JAMES CONNOLLY debating society at the Felons Club in Belfast. This letter was sent from Belfast Solicitor, John O'Neil of Thompsons McClure Solicitors of Victoria Chambers, Belfast, to Jack O'Connor President of Siptu, and STATES, CATAGORATICALLY, that ITGWU did sack its own members and disgustingly set up an Illegal Union/Employers Court, the forerunner of Partnership. O'Connor engaged these solicitors after I TWICE at large meetings, accused him of being corrupt and of covering up corruption.

If you, Socialist want a copy - or could help me to put a copy on indymedia I'd be grateful. As would the Trade Unionist who slavishly follow Siptu and Jack O'Connor.

by Barry - 32 csm Sat Nov 24, 2007 22:07

Patrick Henry and " Big Mac" from this thread seem to be making claims to a similar shard history , former life long republican , plague on all your houses , republicanism is waste of time etc .

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85112&comment_limit=0&c...13621

what an amazing coincidence

by Barry - 32 csm Sat Nov 24, 2007 19:28

To both posters who seem to urge do nothing in the face of colonialism , occupation and imperialism in this country all I can say is that the dignity and sacrifice of those who died in 1916 and 1981 stand in stark contrast to the antics of todays political leaders . And to your own apathetic outlook .
Both Bertie Ahern and Gerry Adams call themselves socialists . This does not mean socialism should be abandoned as a result , no more than seperatism should be abandoned as result of their hypocrisy and corru[ption on that issue either .
Imperialisms success over those who resist relies ultimately on their ability to kill hope . Both replies seem to carry the gist of this message also .

by Patrick Henry Sat Nov 24, 2007 15:45

I'm fed up listening to people harping on about James Connolly and Pearse etc and their support for armed struggle and glorious sacrafice for the Republic, but the question I ask is what since their deaths and the deaths of countless others after them has been achieved?
Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikers were just as courageous as those executed in 1916 but their deaths has changed nothing except put a new generation of corrupt and hypocrital politicans in power.
If those Republicans who think that what is basically an embarrassing continuance of the war will achieve anything that the sacrafice of those before them failed to achieve then they have learnt nothing from the past.
As a former Volunteer who trod that path I now realise that what the people want is a better life for themselves and their families and to hell with replacing Brit Gangsters with Irish Gangsters. Sure aren't $inn Fein in Goverment and what has changed? Nothing except more Republican Plots in our graveyards.

by Crasey Sat Nov 24, 2007 13:14

Looking at the Irish Republic, it's not far different from the 'United Kingdom' with its involvement in an illegal war (kidnappings for torture, etc.,), reduction in public services, and giving away its people's rights to money-before-anything multinational companies. This undermines belief in a republic bringing any sort of social justice.

by Barry - 32 csm Fri Nov 23, 2007 23:20

The fact eammoon mcann sells his labour to a capitalist is irrelevant in my opinion , I sell mine 5 days a week to an out and out capitalist scumbag who wont permit a union amongst his workforce . . Every opportunity should be taken to secure a platform for a rebuttal of bourgeouis and capitalist hegemony .

But im afraid this type of misrepresentaition by socialist is helpful to no-one .

""The kind of attacks that McCann makes on republicanism are completely in the tradition of James Connolly who was an internationalist like McCann. "The worker of another country is my fellow patriot, the Irish capitalist my enemy". "The working class is the only true inheritor of the struggle for Irish freedom". None of his detailed writings supported the kind of clandestine armed struggle that Irish republicanism has been associated with. . ""

This is simply preposterous considering Connolly himself was a member of the very very clandestine indeed IRB supreme council ,a strong advocate of guerilla warfare , as well as a noted admirer of the very clandestine fenian movement which preceded the clandestine IRB . Connolly was also deeply influenced by James Fintan Lalor who wrote on armed struggle -

"Any man who tells you that an act of armed resistance—even if offered by 10 men armed with stones—any man who tells you that such an act of resistance is premature, imprudent or dangerous— any and every such man should at once be spurned, spat at. For remark you this and recollect it, that somewhere, and somehow, and by somebody a beginning must be made, and that the first act of resistance is always and must be ever premature, imprudent and dangerous." — James Fintan Lalor "

his own view on armed struggle was

"Revolutionaries who shrink from giving blow for blow until the great day has arrived and they have every shoestring in its place and every man has got his gun and the enemy has kindly consented to postpone action in order not to needlessly hurry the revolutionaries nor disarray their plans—such revolutionaries only exist in two places: on the comic opera stage and on the stage of Irish politics." (November 1915)

As regards the basis of his internationalist outlook

"We desire to preserve with the English people the same political relations as with the people of France, of Germany or of any other country. The greatest possible friendship, but also the strictest independence... Thus, inspired by another ideal, conducted by reason and not by tradition, the ISRP arrive at the same conclusion as the most irreconcilable nationalists. " (1897

"The Socialist Party of Ireland recognise and most enthusiastically endorses the principles of internationalism, but it recognises that that principle must be sought through the medium of universal brotherhood rather than by self extinction of distinct nations within the political maw of overgrown empires." (Forward, march 1911)

Iirish nationalism and socialism were fully compatible as revolutionary ideas in connollys writings and clandestine actions .

"In fact, Connolly's involvement in 1916 had more to do with his despair about the First World War than any romantic notions of freeing Ireland"

This is patent rubbish . Connolly was a very firm and longtime advocate of the Irish seperatist cause . His disillusionment with the international and particularly the English left became marked during the 1913 lock out when he noted that while Englsih socialists contributed funds for releief they balked at the notion of a solidarity strike with the Dublin workers .Their actions during the imperialist war merely conformed what he already knew .
Your advancing the notion that connolly acted out of desperation and distress , possibly not in his right mind at the time . You seem to regard connollys involvement as some grave ideological error .

"Socialist "also wrote - The point about Connolly's opposition to the clandestine nature of the republican armed struggle is relevant also to the Raytheon 9 case."

This is highly dishonest . you have not demonstrated anywhere that James Connolly was opposed to the clandestine nature of republican armed struggle . That is just rubbish . Youve just made this point up by yourself to crowbar James Connolly into whatever ideological box you inhabit and believe the world should be neatly tied up with a bow in . Your points are not only innacurate but dishonest , and deliberately so .

" I didn't know that the SWP had attacked the Catholic Worker people. In fact, I'm not sure that it could be true as they organised benefits and public meetings for them. But even if they did, I have heard McCann and others of the Raytheon 9 speaking and they do draw a distinction between their action and that of the Shannon people. They say there was nothing clandestine about their action. On the Raytheon 9 website they say it was organised at packed meetings of the anti war coalition and the 9 who ended up inside just happened to be those who got in and were not thrown back out by the cops as some others of the protesters at Raytheon were. So, their action was very different to the, admittedly brave, actions of the Catholic Workers who organised it in secret and as something that was 'giving witness' more than anything else."

OK .We've now determined that you are ideologically opposed to what you regard as "clandestine" action . Thats fine , thats your right and your prerogative but dont try and misrepresent others such as James Connolly who most certainly did act in a clandestine manner in persuit of his revolutionary and fenian goal , as a socialist and republican seperatist .

by Ciaron Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:18

Unless I missing something here.....
It sounds like Eamonn is presently on trial facing a possibility of years in jail.
I assume he is a little distracted at the moment to respond to these questions and arguments.

I suggest give it a break until after the Raytheon trial.
And if he is still online at that stage you might get a response.

This attempt at a debate seems a little untimely.

by socialist Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:31

I knew I had read something by him on this issue and just googled it. He wrote an entire column about it in the Belfast Telegraph. Here's the link:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/columnists/eamon-mcca...4.ece

by Hugh Murphy - Sacked by ITGWU and Belfast employers. Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:22

Personally speaking, I believe Eamon McCann should be free to write and give an opinion on anything he likes.
But I must confess to being confused.

When I sent Eamon absolute proof of the corruption and anti worker practices of ITGWU at Belfast Docks - and the cover up by ICTU and SIPTU, he ignored both me and the proof.

For a supposed champion of the workers and underdogs to ignore such overwhelming evidence, which, had he reported on it, would've got him a lot more attention than a SIT IN and would've shown the workers just what their leaders in the Trade Union Movement are up to - beggers belief.

AND... maybe this would have galvanised the workers into demanding some Socialism from the unions.

Why the RED herrings, Eamon...?

by Ciaron O'Reilly - London Catholic Worker/ Pit Stop Ploughshares Fri Nov 23, 2007 09:48

I think we should save the debate about differences between the Ploughshares approach and Raytheon 9 until the conclusion of the trial. In my experience the Prosecution exploited indymedia extensively on cross examination. There will be trolls trying to bait folks over the coming weeks as they tried to bait us and our support....for us over issues like church hierarchy, abortion, perosonal slander etc. Issues that have nothing to do with the actions taken at Raythoen or Shannon.

Deirdre and I went to Derry and spoke in support of the Raytheon 9 action shortly after the Ploughshares acquital. The London Catholic Worker is organisng a solidarity vigil at Raytheon HQ in London during this trial. I support the nonviolent direct action taken at Raytheon. While the defendants are before the courts its up to the rest of us to organise around the issues they have raised...the nature of the arms trade, Irish complicity in the killing of Lebanese etc

The folks who put themselves out to express solidarity with me while on trial do not agree with everything I believe in....I wasn't running fo office, I was before the courts! I do not agree with with the worldview of Eamonn but I wish to express my solidarity him and the other 8 with the nonviolent direct action they took at Raytheon.

by socialist Thu Nov 22, 2007 20:55

If Eamonn McCann wanted to sell his soul to O'Reilly or any other capitalist, he would hardly be writing the stuff he does week after week in the Belfast Telegraph: where he backs the workers against the capitalists, however unpopular the strikes they're in the middle of. And even if he was writing for the Indo and other O'Reilly papers, isn't he allowed to earn a living? Does Ralph not sell HIS labour to some capitalist.

The kind of attacks that McCann makes on republicanism are completely in the tradition of James Connolly who was an internationalist like McCann. "The worker of another country is my fellow patriot, the Irish capitalist my enemy". "The working class is the only true inheritor of the struggle for Irish freedom". None of his detailed writings supported the kind of clandestine armed struggle that Irish republicanism has been associated with. In fact, Connolly's involvement in 1916 had more to do with his despair about the First World War than any romantic notions of freeing Ireland.

The point about Connolly's opposition to the clandestine nature of the republican armed struggle is relevant also to the Raytheon 9 case. I didn't know that the SWP had attacked the Catholic Worker people. In fact, I'm not sure that it could be true as they organised benefits and public meetings for them. But even if they did, I have heard McCann and others of the Raytheon 9 speaking and they do draw a distinction between their action and that of the Shannon people. They say there was nothing clandestine about their action. On the Raytheon 9 website they say it was organised at packed meetings of the anti war coalition and the 9 who ended up inside just happened to be those who got in and were not thrown back out by the cops as some others of the protesters at Raytheon were. So, their action was very different to the, admittedly brave, actions of the Catholic Workers who organised it in secret and as something that was 'giving witness' more than anything else.

by PB Wed Nov 21, 2007 23:28

Yet another leading Shinner outed....How many more???
McCann dosn't need to attack Republicanism they're doing a good job themselves.

by Ralph McCarthy Wed Nov 21, 2007 21:21

Eamonn McCann identifies republicanism as the problem-not exploitation, not imperialism, not capitalism, not sectarianism, not religion. Eamonn McCann gets paid by Sir Anthony O Reilly to attack republicanism.
James Stephens once wrote he didnt worry when the capitalist press didnt print what he wrote:he said he'd be much more worried if they did print it. Because then he knew he would no longer be taking a radical position. McCann is unburdened by any such qualms. Being paid by O Reilly to say that republicanism is the problem means that McCann ridicules the life and death of the republican James Connolly. Connolly was certainly a problem for British imperialism. And British imperialism never quite recovered from 1916. Recently RTE had a programme which compared William Martin Murphy to O Reilly. Murphy's writers at the time were instrumental in the death of Connolly. Could anyone imagine James Connolly being paid by William Martin Murphy to attack revolutionary republicanism? Yet today, McCann takes the money of our current William Martin Murphy in O Reilly's sustained effort to destroy the Irish resistance to economic and political, and indeed cultural, imperialism. He has joined the paid hack stable of Ruth D Edwards and Eoghan Harris, who regard 1916 as '' unrepresentative" and "unmandated". McCann is now also a paid propagandist of the Irish capitalist class, selling his brains and ability to O Reilly one of republicanism's most powerful material enemies. Along with Edwards and Harris, McCann is now, given the material interests he serves, the voice of reaction.
The Raytheon attack too is by an "unrepresentative" and "unmandated" microgroup. A few years ago, when in the South some people took similar action against military planes, they were attacked by the SWP for their adventurous and individualistic actions. Such actions are apparently O.K when led by a paid propagandist of Ireland's leading capitalist.

by Peter the Great Wed Nov 21, 2007 18:37

What was it all about asks Eamonn McCann?
http://elblogador.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-was-it-all-....html

by ! Wed Nov 21, 2007 06:52

Does the U.S. Republican party share similar political ancestry to Irish Republicanism? It was probably anti-imperialist/ anti British at an early part of its evolution.

Good to see Irish Republicans at Celtic FC pulling off the most seious anti-war protest yeasterday. How do Blair, Reid, Prescott think, they can start a war and walk away from it.....
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2213799,00....html

A refreshing dynamic to the Republicans involved in the Raytheon action, their broader concerns for other peoples suffering under the firepower of imperialism

by Barry - 32 csm Wed Nov 21, 2007 01:18

""There is something strange about these acts if one places them within the context of Irish Republicanism. This must be the very first time in that history during the last 80 odd years where acts are carried out by groups with no political representation at all (and I’m deliberately discounting the micro-groups that were carried along on the tail of the Troubles - or indeed during the Border campaign - since there was a broader political context) and are carried out anonymously. While that may seem to fit a template of the Troubles it actually doesn’t as regards mainstream Republicanism.""

it falls on its arse with that reflection . The 2 attacks on the PSNI and the bomb attack in newry was claimed almost immediately afterwards , as are all such attacks . And during the 1940s " paxo " bomb campaign in england , immediately after devalera had cornered the political market , the IRA had completely disassociated itself from sinn fein . that link was only tenuously re-established in the 1950s . The candidates elected in the 1950s were prisoner candidates in a country where nationalism and patriotism was very much common to the general citizenry , unlike today were the concepts are a dirt word . No party political programme was being advanced .
Ive spoken in particular to a veteran of the Brookeboro raid who ended up in a free state internment camp . He chuckles at his memory of going into a camp full of men fired up at the notion of 5 TDs etc thinking there was great support outside . He delivered the sad new to them that the people outside didnt give a shit they were interned . And they didnt . By 1958 the IRA hadnt a shilling to its name . Its internal financial accounts of that period are available to read in J Bowyer Bells seminal work which covers the 1950s campaign in great detail .
And far from being well armed the IRA were desperately short of arms and ammunition , they had hardly explosives to speak of or any weaponry capable of taking down even the most isolated RUC post , usually just a house with a few sandbags .
The campaign wasnt just about sabotage , there were many ambushes laid , but none came off in 6 years . A couple of casualties were inflicted with snipes in south armagh , which had remined very quiet , at the very end of the campaign .
the writer is assuming that the very same thing hasnt happened to todays insurgents .
Consititutional nationalism was in the ascendancy immediately prior to 1916 . Not even sinn fein was linked to insurgency . Today constitutional nationalism is at its peak once again after a century of a failed sinn fein project as regard republican seperatism . The fact a republican seperatist political project has failed to materialise to a point were it is strong enough to challenge constitutional nationalisms hegemony does not mean such a project doesnt exist .
I suspect along with the term micro group the writer of that piece is attempting to suggest the attacks on the British forces in recent weeks are the work of British intelligence .

by Bronterre Wed Nov 21, 2007 00:14

Claims the 56-62 campaign had quite a bit of support, or at least more than current 'dissident's.

http://www.tomgriffin.org/the_green_ribbon/2007/11/the-....html

The Van Crevelt piece to which there's a link is an interesting analysis of how the British defeated the Provos.

by Fergus Tue Nov 20, 2007 15:25

"The Socialist Workers Party Ireland is a derivation of its English counterpart. To unravel the origins of McCann's political philosophy requires a history of the development of the English Soc. Workers Party. (and to unravel that tangled web is quite a daunting task) To say that Irish republicanism is 'the' problem is to ignore 200 years of progressive history and shows the metropolitan, anglocentric origins of such a view."

This is not true. The British branch of the International Socialist Tendency (aka SWP) has always been way more pro-republican than the Irish one. This is generally true of the wider left as well. In addition McCann's main piece of literature on the Northern conflict, War and an Irish Town, was written long before he joined the SWP (and is very sympathetic towards republicanism).

The habit of describing as British, or ascribing to Britain, everything in Ireland that one doesn't like, doesn't inspire confidence in a potential ability to graple with the reality of Ireland circa 2007. Likewise with taking "republican" (or more properly whatever variant of republicanism one subscribes to) as the norm for, and definition of, Irish.

Some Irish people, lots of them in fact, have opinions which are to varying degrees critical of republicanism, we can dismiss this as the hand of perfidious Albion, but such would not be conducive to changing those peoples' minds or indeed look like a belief in 'national self-determination', after all if all views outside a fairly narrow spectrum are in fact British inspired, such views cannot be a part of a national self determination, leaving the 'nation' as a very small slice of the actual population of this island.

Yeah and I think most of the comments have missed McCann's point by miles and miles, which is if your problem is with unrepresentative unmandated groups adopting unworkable tactics, as Gerry Adams says, then your problem is with republicanism, but obviously Adams isn't gonna say that. He isn't ascribing all responsiblity for the conflict to republicans, in fact I doubt if he would ascribe much any. This is pretty obvious to anyone who has actually read what the chap has to say (which is often very republican inclined in fact) as opposed to making a knee jerk reaction.

by D Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:03

Final one

Firstly I am for the peace as stated - -- and indeed would have actively sought such ---.

Indeed those 'Republicans continuing such a struggle well my points stand as much today as I had wrote them at the time in this link—indeed even more so

Link - http://www.phoblacht.net/dissidentrepubdc.html

For me it is not about mileage as I can talk about many local state atrocities from the Ballymurphy massacre right through to other such – where I live

My point is simply that ALL sides carried out such, {and I have long stated such – but have also stated where I believe that the - - -Original Problems lay} and that should be acknowledged, indeed it is time that the issue of the Past was increasingly moved to be dealt with – in the cementing of such ‘Peace.

These also so lessons can be learnt from, from all sides – - As to what the root causes where and how they can be learnt from so such an immediate circumstances need not arise again.

Loyalist – Unionist, Republican and the State ALL had a hand in what went before, to acknowledge that – well that is a start

My final point as stated is that I will stand with all such in the call and search for a better society than the one we came from, but at the same time will say what I think is wrong as well as what I believe is right – not to do so is not to learn from the past and a barrier to seeing that such need not rise again.

I would Vision that such as before will not arise, but with lessons learnt and issues acknowledged however hard it may be to see the other side – then a better society from even what we are at will be increasingly seen.

I know from experience how hard it is not to attempt to understand as to why the other side did such, especially when the brutality has been visited amongst yourself, friends, family and neighbours etc - or even just for those watching from afar {-and this discussion has shown how hard it still will be -} – but only when one can begin to do so, and then move to see a complete picture from all sides, then and only then can we really move on from where we where at.

Cheers for engaging Sceptic, {it was important} and it had afforded me the opportunity to raise essential points at this time.

Full support and Solidarity for Eammon and the others –

I stand shoulder to shoulder with them on this - ‘D

Signing Off

by Bronterre O'Brien Mon Nov 19, 2007 23:01

McCann and his companions have put the death merchant Raytheon in the dock of the court of world opinion.

The millions massacred by the religious, Anglo-American, neo-con imperial war is the real crime here.

A stupid, unsustainable remark about republicanism should not detract from this moral act to curb Raytheon's role in mass murder and the creation of oceans of blood.

An acquittal will uphold such a moral stance and will reinforce worldwide efforts to halt the anti-human depredations of the Anglo-American empire.

by Frank Mon Nov 19, 2007 22:39

To proffer the notion that progress was made on the issues you cite without the impact of violence in Ireland is disingenuous.

by Sceptic Mon Nov 19, 2007 22:15

REPRESENTATION IN AN IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT DOES NOT A DEMOCRACY MAKE.
It makes for a lot more democracy than the army council of the IRA ever had in recent times. It was the homeland parliament and the Irish group was large and influential there able to make and break Governments at times. Progress was made on the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, the Land Question, Local Government, education and of course the promotion of the Home Rule agenda which represented the aspirations of the bulk of the people at the time. Certain republicans are quick to dismiss democracy with these sorts of taunts or the Dublin parliament as “partitionist” or on some other grounds. But in so doing they are putting an elitist, secret, and often criminal group like the IRA Army Council as the rightful Government with no democratic due process whatever. That is the problem of Republicans putting themselves above democracy.

VICTIMHOOD
Republicans created so many more innocent victims (mostly Northern catholic civilians) themselves that their moral authority in this matter is non-existent. You can only get so much mileage out of Bombay Street and it did not excuse attacking the ROI’s institutions by any stretch or many of the other targets selected as “legitimate” from time to time. Nor the numerous kidnappings and armed robberies and the murders of Garda in the south. Deciding that no rules of ordinary behaviour apply to themselves meant that so called “republicans” came to be seen in the south for what they were and represented - political subversion of a hard won democratic State, organised crime gangs and outright terrorism.

FOR ME, AS ONE WHO HAS A RIGHT TO AN OPINION AS ANYONE ELSE
No one is questioning your right to express your view. What you will not or cannot do is to rebut McCann substantively which was my challenge.

HE IS A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND HAS PUT HIS LIBERTY ON THE LINE.
MCCANN AND HIS COMPANIONS ARE GOING TO TRIAL IN A BRITISH COURT. THATS SIMPLY A FACT.
It was suggested that this the Raytheon case was about British repression. It is not. It is about the trying of a felony in the jurisdiction in which it the happened - nothing more.

The overall issue is not one of advanced nationalism being wrong per se or that there was anything wrong in asserting ones strong values or beliefs or opposition. It was the techniques employed by some and their utter contempt for democracy and decent values. Having no legitimacy except for a self-discerned and spurious apostolic succession to 1916 is what unleashed an ocean of bloodshed and subversion by the various IRAs we have had since then. This is the dangerous idea that McCann has identified as have others before him.

by D Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:34

Yep here is the wee link attached {and the discussions}- as some of the issues would be relevant to this discussion.

by D Mon Nov 19, 2007 09:54

--- 57’-------

Hello Sceptic,

There have been those, and are those, who have ‘Constantly and ‘Visibly stood against what they believed was wrong, whether the brutality came from Loyalists, the State or Republicans.

Indeed those who constantly called for actions against the evils of only one side, fell not only into the hands of the Propagandists but also gave succour to those who wanted to lash out even more repression on working class citizens and innocents.

So when u talk of victim hood, I remember innocent men, women and children beaten, brutalised and shot by the state, I remember looking into the coffins, or other coffins unable to be opened because of the sheer brutality of they state – and remember much more – witnessed upon oneself as a child.

And when u talk of Alternatives, I remember those who had attempted to use the courts and rule of law even in the dark times {and against wishes of others}, only to see no justice forthcoming, and indeed for seeking such justice, their families - men women and children again targeted by the state, and again brutalised and taunted about their Childs or other family members death and harassed - by the state – and much more.

Indeed some of your points, {including that of ‘democratic Institutions}in your inputs {over time} can be read as little more than state Propaganda, similar to many a journo whose points I read while reading back on the past.

Therefore your points fall on deaf ears with oneself, why, because when you have lived it, then all the Propaganda in the world will not alter those memories.

And so rather than going over old ground, I think I had a similar debate with u before on Indymedia – so for those interested refer to that debate {if anyone could be kind enough to find it}

For me, as one who has a right to an opinion as anyone else, I disagree with Eamonn on his point that ‘Republicanism is the Problem – as I have stated in previous inputs, as the Problem indeed laid and lays elsewhere.

I have Visibly Supported Eamonn and the others in solidarity calls against Raytheon, and will continue to do so.

I have also visibly supported some other’s comrades - on issue of Prisoners concerns

Indeed I believe that there cannot be a flip side between ‘Local Imperialism and Far away Imperialism.

And while I have visibly lent support to both I have and will continue to point out my disagreements with both, indeed that is the way forward.

Indeed full support and solidarity needs to forthcoming in their stand against Raytheon

-with that I finish as I had finished my first input.

‘ for the record, the 'Problem, without doubt lays at the door of those who drove working class citizens to re- act, rather than at the door of those working class citizens who re - acted.

by Br. O'B Mon Nov 19, 2007 00:22

Working class women, -women without property-, did not obtain the right to vote in 1918.

by Bronterre O'Brien Mon Nov 19, 2007 00:07

Republicanism has been a powerful force in Irish political life for over 200 years. its struggles have been key in the development of not only Irish democracy but British democracy also.
The Irish Labour Party's current leader and previous leader are former members of S.F. the W.P.
Representation in an imperial parliament does not a democracy make.
The Socialist Workers Party Ireland is a derivation of its English counterpart. To unravel the origins of McCann's political philosophy requires a history of the development of the English Soc. Workers Party. (and to unravel that tangled web is quite a daunting task) To say that Irish republicanism is 'the' problem is to ignore 200 years of progressive history and shows the metropolitan, anglocentric origins of such a view. But McCann is entitled to his beliefs. He is a man of integrity and has put his liberty on the line.
McCann and his companions are going to trial in a British court. Thats simply a fact. The British state and the arms industry are interlocked. McCann and his companions took a courageous, justifiable stand. Lets hope the jury does the right thing and puts the right to human life above the property rights of a merchant of death.

by Sceptic Sun Nov 18, 2007 23:27

Now IS the time to debate the issue of the legitimacy of the republican notion of violence to achieve political ends given that McCann has raised the issue, you have dismissed him in insubstantial terms and others are now supporting a RIRA campaign targeting catholic PSNI for killing. You seem anxious to skate over the issue. Democracy did not begin in Ireland with independence – there were political parties, numerous newspapers and a thriving political scene in Ireland prior to independence as is well known from the rise to prominence of a series of democratic leaders from O’Connell to Parnell and Redmond. Also the Labour Party for one was founded prior to independence and Griffith’s original Sinn Fein founded in 1905 was both non-violent and monarchist – tracing the lineage of today’s political parties is problematic more than simple. Moreover in the north the SDLP was a new departure in 1970. The Home Rule question may have been unresolved at the formative period but Ireland was very democratic by the standards of the time and more so with female suffrage introduced throughout the UK in 1918. It is a republican myth that Ireland was not democratic until the War of Independence.

The Raytheon issue is not one of British State repression as you try to make out. The attack on Raytheon would be a felony in any country including the ROI and would attract a criminal prosecution and the possibility of custodial sentences on conviction.

by Bronterre O'Brien Sun Nov 18, 2007 21:31

To the extent that Ireland is democratic its because of the republican War of Independence, from which derive all Irish political parties except the Greens.
Now is not the time for disputations about republicanism. McCann and his companions go on trial tomorrow. Their liberty is in jeopardy from the British state which supports the merchant of death, Raytheon.
McCann has already given witness and eloquent testimony. His powerful vindication should be widely distributed:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mccann09032007.html

by soc Sun Nov 18, 2007 21:06

surely mccann is is still in favour of a workers republic, he just doesnt mention it in every article or speech

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Nov 18, 2007 19:50

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85112

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Nov 18, 2007 19:42

As far as Im aware the derry republican Eammon McCann attended that picket for was Gary Donnelly , a former independent republican election candidate , leading 32 csm member and fellow defendant among the Raytheon 9 along with Eamon . The reports Im hearing are that Gary has had his arm fractured in 3 places during the beating he received while handuffed from the PSNI on the eve of his court appeance and was denied medical attention . Staff at Altnagelvin hospital put him on a morphine drip when eventually admitted to their care .
Eammon McCann stands beside the rights of his fellow Raytheon 9 not to have their limbs smashed by the states bullyboys . Martin McGuinness demands that the republican base not only act as informers for these people but join them .
Martin McGuinness is attacking republicanism , not Eammon McCann .

by Sceptic Sun Nov 18, 2007 17:50

Bronterre O'Brien you should not be allowed get away with that dismal of McCann’s critique of violent republicanism. He explained and defended his position. All you did was cast meaningless aspersions. Why should it be either “anglo-centric” or “metropolitan” for Irish people to reject violent republicanism for the reasons McCann and others have identified? Is McCann anglo-centric suddenly? What is “democratic” about endorsing the IRA campaigns of violence in the 1950s and subsequently or the RIRA attacks on the PSNI now when the Irish people never gave their consent for the making of war on their behalf and indeed on occasion against their own democratic institutions ?

by Bronterre O'Brien Sun Nov 18, 2007 16:56

While the several strands of Irish republicanism can certainly be criticized, it is very much a metropolitan, anglo-centric view to call Ireland's revolutionary republican movement 'the' problem. And it misunderstands and misrepresents the long struggle of the Irish people towards democracy.

But no one can doubt the sincerity and commitment of Eamonn McCann. And as he goes on trial tomorrow lets hope the jury keeps certain things in mind.

Raytheon is in the business of mass murder. Death is the commodity produced in Raytheon's factory and it came from the skies to the little biblical town of Qana, where Jesus Christ, to his eternal credit, changed water into wine. Raytheon profits from the massacre of the innocent. How did we arrive at a situation where the capitalized blood of children can be traded on the stock exchange? Such an obscenity and atrocity cries out for action. Those on trial took such an action.

In the long human struggle for justice and liberty the people of the sweet walled town on the banks of the Foyle have never shirked. The world now watches as the jury will decide if the law protecting the property of the merchants of death should be nullified. If the jury believes that those who profit from death must be stopped then they will acquit.

by Derry socialist Sun Nov 18, 2007 15:41

At least not what people call 'Irish republicanism'. Of course, all socialists are republicans in that they want a workers' republic. the key question is whether you see that as something that is fought for AFTER the Brits have gone (like most 'Irish republicans') or something that is fought for in the here and now and which sees getting rid of the Brits as a by-product of workers taking over society - as opposed to the key aim. In my long acquaintance with McCann...going back to the 1960s...he has always stood for a Workers Republic with the emphasis on the workers in control rather than the republic bit. And while the language has moved on in a world dominated by globalisation, the principles remain the same.

by Ciarán Ó B Sun Nov 18, 2007 15:27

McCann seems to have stopped talking about his republicanism after 1969. Here's a clip from the start of a programme on the Gaeltacht Civil Rights Movement in which he calls for the north and south to be reunited in the Workers' Republic. Like the Socialist Republic, it's a goal you won't hear him mention much these days.

by Derry socialist Sun Nov 18, 2007 15:12

Indeed, I remember back at the time of the hunger strikes when, while travelling from one end of the country to the other speaking in support of the hunger strikers, McCann spoke at meetings entitled 'socialism or republicanism?' where he was clear that there is a gulf between the two. His book 'War and an Irish Town' from the early 70s makes similar points.

As to whether he stands with republicans against the state....it's clear he still does that. He was on a picket outside the Strand Road police station in Derry yesterday which was protesting at police brutality against a 32CSM member - a very clear example of a revolutionary position: opposing the dead-end of the politics of the dissidents while also defending their right not to be beaten up by the cops for those politics....And, it has to be said, a pretty unpopular thing to do....nothing 'trendy lefty' about being seen defending these people....I wouldn't want to be seen doing it myself, though I admire his guts for doing it just two days before going on trial for the Raytheon occupation.

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Nov 18, 2007 02:12

actually Im unsure as to what Eammon McCann means by republicanism being the problem . "A problem for who" is another conclusion one could reach from a piece in which he makes a very accurate set of observations .
It should be remembered though the sf members elected were republican prisoners , not guys in armani suits , and wouldnt have took their seats if elected anyway . Despite their electoral success there was no public outcry at all over the fact the southern state interned them en masse in direct co-operation with the stormont authorities . So sympathy would be a more accurate description of their support . Nontheless though when the campaign was launched they had no electoral mandate whatsover , and werent interested in one . The IRA of that period wasnt overly bothered with sinn fein either , trut hbe told .. And Gerry adams himself was on record for a very long time stating that republicans have never required an electoral mandate for their armed strugle to be legitimate . The British presence in Ireland is what made it legitimate .
But on another level McCann may be correct in that it is very accurate to state that republicanism has consistently gone down the same path , from revolution to reformism , time and time and time again despite the benefit of hindsight . Therefore there has historically been a fundamental failure within its approach . It is the identifying of that failure and addressing it which must be the primary focus of republicans .

Because if your not part of the solution then your obviously part of the problem .

While I dont regard the article as an expression of support by any means I dont necessarily regard it as an attack . Instead it should be food for theought for all who call themselves republican .

by Conchubair Pleamonn Sun Nov 18, 2007 00:39

The link is to an interesting post. McCann in the past described himself as a republican ?
http://threethousandversts.blogspot.com/2007/11/republi....html

by Joe Sat Nov 17, 2007 17:45

I must admit that I enjoy the work of Eamonn Mc Cann. The man will encourage debate by his contempt of the beliefs held by others. His wit is infectious. Republicanism may be the problem as he wrote or the trust placed in republican leaders may have been the problem. The war is over and the war is lost. Accepting that this phase of the republican struggle has ended in failure will not diminish the republican cause or indeed prevent a future generation from removing the British cancerous presence from our island. The words of the intellectual revolutionary Mc Cann will change nothing.

by Ciarán Ó B Sat Nov 17, 2007 16:29

The problem with this piece is that McCann seems to be trying to get a dig in against Adams (and republicanism in general), and has decided to distort history to this end, as he states:

They were dissidents in the sense that those who shot and wounded off-duty members of the PSNI in Derry last Thursday and in Dungannon on Monday are dissidents. That is to say, they had rejected the view of the majority on the island who defined themselves as republicans, and had instead maintained a commitment to armed struggle. They enjoyed no electoral mandate nor any substantial public support and didn't believe they needed to justify continuation of armed action. (My emphasis)

Of course, this would require ignoring the fact that at the height of the Border Campaign/Operation Harvest in 1957, Sinn Féin received around 70,000 votes and had 4 TDs elected in the 26-county general election. Interestingly, this is the same number of TDs that Sinn Féin has today in Leinster House, yet no-one would argue that they have no electoral mandate or public support (well, maybe McCann would).

The Border Campaign is interesting in that its failure led to many leaders of the Republican Movement (Costello, Garland, Mac Giolla, etc.) realising that the national question will always achieve the sympathy of a large section of population of the 26-counties (which would also reveal itself later in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday in 1972 and the Hunger Strikes in 1981) but that if people were going to be more than passive well-wishers then the socioeconomic issues that affected their day-to-day existence had to be addressed as well.

by Sceptic Sat Nov 17, 2007 15:51

It is a comment by McCann, not an attack as headlined. Any criticism of republicans is an “attack” in some circles. The contribution by Davy Carlin above presupposes a shared worldview of this oppressor-repressed duality with the downtrodden victims fighting back. There is no objective agreement that this paradigm is valid in the instances McCann deals with for example the 1950s campaigns or the more recent attempted assassination of PSNI officers by the latest particular incarnation of the Republican idea. Of course if you paint a picture of an environment every bit as bad as the Nazi occupation of Poland anything then becomes justified or in some way excusable – even the Enniskillen or Le Mon House or Claudy bombings – but this ignores reasonable degrees of political grievances and alternative means that may have been available to highlight or remedy those grievances. Much of the rest of the defenders of the republican theology invokes similar strong language of victimhood almost like a shopping catalogue “Imperialism, Colonialism, Capitalism – and the Repression and Oppression etc etc”. The usual MOPERY. The only comment made that had validity is that the situation has gone though a transformation in this time compared to the 1950s and that whatever justification might have been available for such militancy then there is none now. The rest of the stuff about betrayal, plots, infiltration is nonsense as is ad hominen the attack on McCann which even manages to bring in Trotsky’s wife! Come off it. The problem with Republicanism, which has been correctly identified by McCann and others before him, is its anti democratic nature. It puts itself above democracy. Sure it will take this or that election if it suits it as a mandate for itself but if the electoral situation is unfavorable to it, it will rely on its own counsel and flawed notions of legitimacy to justify its violence and criminality.

by Davy Carlin Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:27

I think if there is to be a debate and discussion on this, we should try to keep it within the confines of the reasonable.

That is respecting eaches right to that opinion without going off on one.

On the article, well, I completely disagree with Eamonn here.

To sum up his article with that of ‘Republicanism is the problem’, does little Justice to the reality of the history of this isle.

And while I disagree with aspects of Republicanism and their actions {and have spoke out and mobilised against such at differing times} - I nevertheless agree with many other aspects of it.

For me neither my starting point nor my summing up is that of ‘Republicanism is the Problem’ – but it is that of, Imperialism, Colonialism, Capitalism – and the Repression and Oppression that drove many into the ranks on Various Republican organisations – that was and in many cases still is the problem today

To attempt to put the ‘Problem onto many of the brutalised, oppressed, repressed, poverty driven, working class people who many where driven to re act and who many eventually embraced Republicanism as a way to defend and fight back – rather than seeing the ‘Problem lay at the door of Oppressor – is quite simply, wrong.

And so while I would agree with Eamonn on the ‘Peace and not the Process of neo liberalism etc {within the Assembly}, and indeed would have sought to see such peace through – {and to now continue the work against neo liberismism etc}.

I fundamentally though, stand on the other said of the fence on this one.

Indeed I have and will continue to stand with republicans when it comes to issues of state repression right through to seeing a united socialist Ireland, for those that genuinely seek it – this while always pointing out what I believe that they had did wrong etc {as I have done in the past}

Yet to write such an article and to sum it up as Eamonn did, deals little with the reality of where we came from why it happened and where we are today.

Indeed, for the record, the 'Problem, without doubt lays at the door of those who drove working class citizens to re- act, rather than at the door of those working class citizens who re - acted.

by Joe Fri Nov 16, 2007 23:47

It is true that the main problem with Republicanism is and was leadership. British Intelligence has always targeted the leadership for recruitment. This keeps the rudder of Republicanism firmly in the grip of the British Establishment and at the service of the British Crown.

The sail of the Republican ship is also set by the British. Tariffs on fuel, livestock or any other commodities are always set at a different level on either side of the border, assuring gangs can make millions out of smuggling. These gangs are then able to call the agenda over more intelligent volunteers who might actually bring about social change and thus threathen the establishment. They also control the entire border region which suits the British.

For every intelligent volunteer like Jim Lynagh, sold out by a senior Sinn Fein British agent (now terminated), there are ten bog men who never finished primary school but who sit on high. Anytime these bog men where not able to bully their way to the top with lorry loads of cash from the smuggling racket they would be allowed bring in boat loads of guns from another famous agent in Libya to boulster their to authority. Shipments all eventually 'put beyond use'.

Those who could not be bought or coerced were terminated. Dennis Donaldson was probably among the most honourable of the rats. He at least confessed his role as a British Agent and went off to Donegal to await his fate. The rest are still hanging on to their power and what good times can be found in the new Authority. What good times? I really couldn't give a 'sniff' about what they would be. But we all remember Colombia.

I think it's time Sinn Fein went cold turkey and disbanded. Let proper politics evolve in Ireland. No more gang controlled agandas.

by cowrdly tom - alos saceked by tigwu Fri Nov 16, 2007 23:18

eanom mackann will only reportt abott saf subjets why willl h e nott reportt about belfst docks and thee coruptian som socilast hes is an jus liek the onees down stouth

by Patrick Henry Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:23

The Problem, Eamonn, is not Republicanism but those who lead it into a cul-de-sac, generation after generation.
Republicanism has now been consigned to the bins behind Stormont and has been smashed beyond repair, not by the enemies of Republicanism but by those who led young idealistic people to shed their blood and kill for it.
To those trying in some deluded way to revive it I would say don't waste your lives as those of earlier generations have, you are only throwing snowballs at a bonefire.

There are too many headstones in our graveyards bearing the names of young Republicans still in their teens or twenties when they died we don't need anymore. How many even bothers to attend their commerations anymore? Very few for few care.