Comments on: The Left Archive: “Socialists, Republicanism and the Armed Struggle” from the Socialist Workers’ Movement c. 1991. http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/ For Lefties too Stubborn to Quit Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:05:24 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ed Hayes http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32658 Ed Hayes Thu, 22 May 2008 10:00:43 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32658 Yeah,Martin would be less forthcoming on say the subject of catering workers being made drive proxy bombs into checkpoints. Yeah,Martin would be less forthcoming on say the subject of catering workers being made drive proxy bombs into checkpoints.

]]> By: Garibaldy http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32633 Garibaldy Wed, 21 May 2008 00:11:33 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32633 That was Morrison who wrote that Ed right? And on the collaborator point, very valid. The worst example I think was the guy forced out of Derry because when he heard his female neighbour screaming and being assaulted, he called the cops thinking she was being raped. Instead it was the local Provos beating her up. They made him leave the country. I wonder how much of the passion of McGuiness' very welcome and forthright condemnation comes from his personal dislike of being disagreed with though. That was Morrison who wrote that Ed right?

And on the collaborator point, very valid. The worst example I think was the guy forced out of Derry because when he heard his female neighbour screaming and being assaulted, he called the cops thinking she was being raped. Instead it was the local Provos beating her up. They made him leave the country. I wonder how much of the passion of McGuiness’ very welcome and forthright condemnation comes from his personal dislike of being disagreed with though.

]]> By: Ed Hayes http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32625 Ed Hayes Tue, 20 May 2008 15:23:44 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32625 The 'really awful' pamphlet was called 'The Good Old IRA.' I think someone other than Timothy wrote it though. We were recomended it in SWM as well, as it supposedly gave the lie to the claims that the modern IRA was completly different to the old. It listed loads of terrible killings from the Tan War. It also claimed that the IRA had no democratic mandate in 1919. Now that you mention it, it was a bit revisionist! What are the odds on Sinn Fein re-publishing it, now that popular mandates are valid reasons for condemning bombs? Btw did you see Pat Doherty praising people for helping rescue the policeman last week? In the 1980s any Catholic who helped a wounded cop would have been labelled a collaborator. The ‘really awful’ pamphlet was called ‘The Good Old IRA.’ I think someone other than Timothy wrote it though. We were recomended it in SWM as well, as it supposedly gave the lie to the claims that the modern IRA was completly different to the old. It listed loads of terrible killings from the Tan War. It also claimed that the IRA had no democratic mandate in 1919. Now that you mention it, it was a bit revisionist! What are the odds on Sinn Fein re-publishing it, now that popular mandates are valid reasons for condemning bombs? Btw did you see Pat Doherty praising people for helping rescue the policeman last week? In the 1980s any Catholic who helped a wounded cop would have been labelled a collaborator.

]]> By: WorldbyStorm http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32608 WorldbyStorm Mon, 19 May 2008 18:44:16 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32608 Very true Jim. Still, no joy on a cover anyone? Very true Jim. Still, no joy on a cover anyone?

]]> By: Jim Monaghan http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32604 Jim Monaghan Mon, 19 May 2008 10:49:50 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32604 Does anyone remember when the Provos went very annoyed when the British SWP made some criticisms of the bombing campaign. There was a really awful pamphlet as well by Mick Timothy, editor, saying that the Provo campaign was the same as the IRA of the War Of Independence. It was so bad that it could have been written by a revisionist of the Cruiser ilk.The Provos seemed to regard support as being uncritical. Alas, most solidarity work tends to be slavishly uncritical. Does anyone remember when the Provos went very annoyed when the British SWP made some criticisms of the bombing campaign. There was a really awful pamphlet as well by Mick Timothy, editor, saying that the Provo campaign was the same as the IRA of the War Of Independence. It was so bad that it could have been written by a revisionist of the Cruiser ilk.The Provos seemed to regard support as being uncritical. Alas, most solidarity work tends to be slavishly uncritical.

]]> By: Ed Hayes http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32601 Ed Hayes Mon, 19 May 2008 09:09:48 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32601 This was actually quite a revision on the 1980s position of 'unconditional but critical support.' This was where KA decided that the armed struggle was counter-productive (nice one, only 21 years after the start of the war). A big deal at the time as it shifted the SWM away from the republican camp. As Garibaldy notes theres a lot of historical errors, which there tends to be in Kieran's stuff. This was actually quite a revision on the 1980s position of ‘unconditional but critical support.’ This was where KA decided that the armed struggle was counter-productive (nice one, only 21 years after the start of the war). A big deal at the time as it shifted the SWM away from the republican camp. As Garibaldy notes theres a lot of historical errors, which there tends to be in Kieran’s stuff.

]]> By: splinteredsunrise http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32600 splinteredsunrise Mon, 19 May 2008 09:06:13 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32600 Ah, the little yellow pamphlet. Having lost my own copy years ago it's sort of nice to see it again. The sort of thing that gives schematism a bad name really. Ah, the little yellow pamphlet. Having lost my own copy years ago it’s sort of nice to see it again. The sort of thing that gives schematism a bad name really.

]]> By: Jim Monaghan http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32599 Jim Monaghan Mon, 19 May 2008 08:42:21 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32599 I would put it that the Loyalists were totally sectarian in their actuions while the Provos were sometimes sectarian. I think there is a difference not a nuance. Putting an equals too sign between even the broad Nationalist struggle and Unionism in all its guises is in my opinion not correct. On a footnote I was for a ceasefire early on in the group I belonged too. I thought the mass base of the Provos could not win.There is an interesting document form PD when they changed their policy called "mass action versus militarism" which I saw as a breakthrough. This internal debate in PD caused a split "The red Republican party". I would put it that the Loyalists were totally sectarian in their actuions while the Provos were sometimes sectarian. I think there is a difference not a nuance. Putting an equals too sign between even the broad Nationalist struggle and Unionism in all its guises is in my opinion not correct.
On a footnote I was for a ceasefire early on in the group I belonged too. I thought the mass base of the Provos could not win.There is an interesting document form PD when they changed their policy called “mass action versus militarism” which I saw as a breakthrough. This internal debate in PD caused a split “The red Republican party”.

]]> By: Garibaldy http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-left-archive-socialists-republicanism-and-the-armed-struggle-from-the-socialist-workers-movement-c-1991/#comment-32597 Garibaldy Mon, 19 May 2008 01:12:32 +0000 http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/?p=1334#comment-32597 Not one mention of sectarian killings carried out by nationalist forces, and totally insufficient discussion of those carried out by loyalists. Loyalist gangs were never simply the result of manipulation from the top, and to think that this is the case is to misunderstand their nature. There isn't any sign of a discussion of the effects of the violence on workers, or on the space for left-wing politics. The account of history offered is somewhat bizarre (and sometimes plain inaccurate). So the reforms introduced around 1970 were not the product of mass action, but of top-down reformism from Britain - this seems to me to totally miss the point about the dynamics for change that were operative in NI at this time, and it is surprising that a group that sees the potential for mass mobilisation in many situations missed the impact of a genuine one that happened under their noses. When I read statements like we won't call for a ceasefire because the right wing does, the first thing that enters my head is Lenin's Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. Quite close to being the most confused document on NI I've ever seen. Not one mention of sectarian killings carried out by nationalist forces, and totally insufficient discussion of those carried out by loyalists. Loyalist gangs were never simply the result of manipulation from the top, and to think that this is the case is to misunderstand their nature. There isn’t any sign of a discussion of the effects of the violence on workers, or on the space for left-wing politics. The account of history offered is somewhat bizarre (and sometimes plain inaccurate). So the reforms introduced around 1970 were not the product of mass action, but of top-down reformism from Britain – this seems to me to totally miss the point about the dynamics for change that were operative in NI at this time, and it is surprising that a group that sees the potential for mass mobilisation in many situations missed the impact of a genuine one that happened under their noses.

When I read statements like we won’t call for a ceasefire because the right wing does, the first thing that enters my head is Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. Quite close to being the most confused document on NI I’ve ever seen.

]]>