Calling all stations… the Cedar Lounge and its political stance November 20, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
Okay, time for some solipsistic reflection so apologies in advance.
On the other hand for those who post and comment or just visit here and for whom it provides a bit of entertainment or even better some utility perhaps it’s good every once in a while to explain what’s going on and why.
The discussion on the MOPE post by Garibaldy is fascinating and one that I think is very important. I have to state that I don’t have a problem with Garibaldy’s contribution and I should also say it’s not ‘my’ blog either even if by dint of circumstance I tend to write a fair bit of the text. It is and remains a group blog.
Firstly it’s important to note that CLR tries not to have too heavy a hand on its contributors or those who comment and within the guidelines that we do have his post is fine. Indeed we’d be a useless forum if we only had material that we all agree with uniformly. Those who bother to read my thoughts on the public sector will know that while broadly supportive of the sector I diverge from some tropes quite radically, usually I hope in a left way, but not exclusively. That, I think is both an honest reflection of my views and makes discussion and debate centred around such matters better. And the point being that it is possible to be of Republicanism or socialism while at the same time willing to provide critiques of aspects of it.
Secondly I’m not a fan of the MOPE theory myself, I have to say that outright, but I think that what Garibaldy described was fair game, and not least because he acknowledged Adams speech was excellent. There is a problem about transmitting the detail of the conflict particularly abroad. This is a contested history. It’s probably best to acknowledge that. Certainly Dawn Purvis’ comments on unionism and its past are a welcome break with a facade of denial that refuses not merely to engage with that history but also with the living legacy of that period. As Left Republicans – and I count G as one, however we define the term Republican – it’s particularly important to face up to the dangers of a mythos evolving, or being perpetuated, that does us not service if it opens us to others criticisms for being factually inaccurate.
Thirdly we’ve had people from all strands of the left write here, including Sinn Féin and the sadly long departed Frank Little who posted for over a year and is a sore loss in terms of the breadth of analysis he gave us (particularly from a EU sceptical position). I’d be disturbed if this was seen as sticky central. I’ve been accused to my face of being a crypto-Provo or Stick. I don’t think that either charge is entirely true – given that my own ideal political home would probably have been something like OSF in the 1970 to 1973 period, a movement big enough to accommodate people like Jim Monaghan (PD) and Sean Garland and Tony Gregory. That the different tendencies they represent went their different ways subsequently is one of the great tragedies of Irish left politics.
Being sympathetic to pretty much all currents of leftism and Republicanism on the island, and where not sympathetic at least willing to engage in a constructive and courteous way the idea that it would be reducible to one viewpoint is something I’d hope to avoid. I can understand given the concentration on The Lost Revolution this year due to its publication that there might be the impression sometimes that that was a major concern of the CLR, but since contributors are posting about all manner of subjects – with the most recent addition of Tombuktu to the fold whose pieces have without doubt extended the range and scope of our interests for the better – I hope in general terms it is only one amongst many concerns. Yep, the Lost Revolution and the debates around it have been very important to me personally, but mostly because I hope these debates offer an opportunity to revitalise the left on the island and perhaps mend some of the damage inflicted by time and circumstance. The range of people present at the launch from SF, the WP, the SP and other formations at the launch of the book was an heartening development and an indication that much of the past while never forgotten can at least be put aside in order to deal with our current problems.
Finally, and all that said, there is a dearth of contributions from SF and indeed Labour, the SP and other formations. So it’s a narrow slice of you who’re making yourselves known at the moment. There have been a number of people who I’ve asked to contribute from various parties of the left (you know who you are) the occasional piece, but they’ve been understandably unable to spare the time, although I should add many of those people have given huge support behind the scenes in terms of forwarding ideas for posts, documents and just general chat.
So that said, more guest posts would be very welcome, from any left source, and if people want to send stuff in, they are very welcome to do so, on topics that take their fancy from any left perspective. We’ll try to put them up if they dovetail with the general approach of the CLR. And we’ll see how it goes from there. The email is… on the er…right. I’ve really got to do something about that. 
Just a brief comment as I dont think I have the depth of subject matter knowledge of most posters here.
I think the strength of the blog is the positive environment it creates for debate. There are disagreements, but they tend to take the form of people constructing arguements and using evidence etc etc. With a couple of exceptions there’s nevver any of the banal insult-swapping we can find on other well -known sites.
I also think the sticky-central line holds absolutely zero water. TLR has raised the profile of the WP this year, and in any event they are one of the major if not the major left wing forces of the last twenty-odd years. Consequently one would expect to read something about them. In any event, any thread on WP or related organisations raises at least as many negative as positive responses.
Even briefer comment: Keep up the good work.
Ramzi, appreciate that and also appreciate your contributions to debates.
wbs,
i have no problem with the spirit of what you write above, and sometimes disagree but am not especially irked by the political slant on clr. but i wonder: which bit of history is it that is not ‘contested’? why does the fact that it is contested render it dangerous for the left to make a call? i’m not familiar with dawn purvis’s statement that you refer to but haven’t these occasionally sharp criticisms of big house unionism for its shoddy treatment of ‘its own’ been a recurrent feature of orange politics for, oh, say 200 years or so? i have no horse in the running on whether adams gave a brilliant or a terrible speech–couldn’t care less, and would be very surprised if he wasn’t hamming it up for the n. american audience. it was the douglass mural and ‘false equivalences’ bit that got me to jump in, and i do think–with all respect to garibaldy–that its a very slippery slope from wheeling out mope to sneering at the best instincts of solidarity and internationalism.
BK,
I don’t feel I was sneering at internationalism. It’s a fundamental part of the politics to which I adhere. I’m all for giving support to the oppressed in other countries. But I still don’t think there’s anything wrong with pointing out that similarities are not the same as equivalences, and that it is often less than helpful for people to promote an exaggerated view, especially when it may set back chances of developing progressive politics.
As for Purvis. Some of what she said was couched in terms of the “Protestant working class”. But she also said this
“The role that social and economic inequalities played in bringing about the Troubles and keeping them alive for more than 40 years is undeniable, and those enduring and remaining inequalities, including sectarianism, are the fault lines along which the potential for a return to violence sits. They are at the heart of the discontent, deprivation, anger and isolation that led to the conflict in the Province, and if they are not addressed with honesty and sincerity, they could be so again.”
and this
“The DUP’s arguments, and the basis of its opposition to human rights, rely on its blinkered view of the causes of the conflict in Northern Ireland. It denies that discrimination existed and that all working-class people, particularly Catholics, endured slums, squalor, poverty and unemployment to preserve the power of the political elite. That view is best summed up by the words of my colleague Gusty Spence, who said:
“You’d neither in you nor on you, but we were in power.”
By holding on to academic selection, the DUP continues to deny working-class children, Protestants in particular, the right to a decent education. The DUP must stop living in denial; it must examine what happened here and what caused the conflict, because it is doing a great disservice to working-class people — Protestant working-class people in particular — and to the most vulnerable people in society. My party supports the Good Friday Agreement and a bill of rights for Northern Ireland.”
I think those are fairly striking comments to come from a loyalist, even if the class politics within them are not what we might regard as fully developed, they are still strongly present. I think they go beyond sentiments of protestant all-class unity.
The debate is here http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2009-11-03.6.1
g:
i don’t think you were sneering either. but that’s where the mope stuff leads. and i’m impressed with those words from dawn. it’s a shame the pup are as marginal as they are, though imho it was their unwillingness, inability in an earlier period to set themselves off clearly from the rest of the pan-u. alliance and speak clearly about sectarianism during harryville, holy cross, etc etc was their undoing. history’s not over, of course, and let’s hope that dawn’s clear thinking strikes a chord.
BK,
That’s fair enough. I’d certainly agree that MOPE can lead to sneering when it gets into the hands of Harris and the like.
I thought it was an impressive contribution from Purvis myself. I think it’s fair to say that she is in many senses the most left-wing member of the Assembly. She certainly raises class politics in a more direct language than everybody else I think. But she does often remain locked in the privileging of one side, though not always.
I think that there probably were some within them who opposed Harryville and the like, but who thought that outspoken opposition would cost them support. Which it probably would have. There were of course also elements within them who supported such actions. I think what cost Hutchinson the seat more than anything was the feud with the UDA. I think that whole thing had a bad effect on their political development. Like you I live in hope. I think she has a good chance of keeping that seat.
“and where not sympathetic at least willing to engage in a constructive and courteous way”
This hasn’t been the case with BICO or the CPI(ML) where contributors hostile to those groups were allowed to make the most outrageous accusations without any censure from yourself.
PJ, thanks for commenting and long time no hear. You’re missed, seriously.
Three thoughts, you have a point to some extent. But I’ve expressed my own grudging admiration for CPI (ML) while also saying that I found some of the people involved to be hard to love from my personal experience of them, BICO less so, but in neither case would the line from the CLR itself be beyond critical as distinct from antagonistic. Secondly the criticisms of policy are a different thing. Beyond that when comments strayed into abuse when drawn to my attention I tried to damp down stuff that was wrong/unfair etc. Thirdly, its notable that with one exception from BICO (and given that neither formation exists any longer) as I recall no one from either group has ever appeared to put upi a counter argument or indeed avail of the facility open to all to have a post. And I’d also note that I’ve happily provided a platform for both BICO and CPI(ML) material and tried in the analyses to treat it on its own terms as best I can, i.e. with at least a degree of neutrality and some respect.
Beyond that these formations aren’t generally liked on the Irish left. That’s no excuse for abuse, but you get my point – there aren’t going to be a lot of sympatheticvoices in an open forum. And extending that point the criticism of them has been as nothing compared to the WP and its members both past and present.
As I say above I want light touch moderation. I could cut all comments off if they were critical, but I don’t think we learn that way which is why I’m so leery of doing that or trying to prevent people whose viewpoints I’d vehemently disagree with from commenting as long, again, as its in reasonable bounds.
I have to say that I rate this site, along with Splintered Sunrise, as my two favourite political discussion sites. Ard mholadh tuilte agat WBS
I find most of the discussions informative, insightful and thought provoking so much so in fact that they have often challanged my long held views on certain issues. The debates around the Lost Revolution were particularly good. As a young republican growing up in Tyrone I had nothing but contempt for the “sticks.” In the black and white world that existed in the 70s, 80s and 90s and in the face of massive British State oppression we viewed the sticks as a contemptous bunch who had moved lock,stock and barrel over to the side of the Brits.
However, the ensuing debate about the Lost Revolution has made me re-evaluate my perceptions somewhat and I now have a sympathetic understanding as to why many of those who stayed with the officials in the early 70′s did what they did. The politics was sound but unfortunately it did not reflect the reality of what was happening on the ground.
Keep up the good work!
Again appreciate that Lda… I think that one thing that strikes me about the history is how much circumstance, personal connections, etc trumped ideology when it came to who stayed and who went (and think of Ivan Barr etc who transferred across). For me having often gone to Bodenstown in the 1980s it wasn’t a huge surprise to learn that there were pockets of strong Republican thinking (and splintered has noted this as well) inside the party which if one listened to the likes of EHarris simply didn’t exist inside the party, a tradition which I think has reasserted itself since the split. I’d also tend to agree that there was a divergence between what those who entirely sincerely wanted from the party, what was as you say was politically sound, and what was achievable in the north at the time given the impact of the British, the nature of the conflict, the traditions and conditions on the ground, etc.
I feel that the ‘Stickie central’ tag would be grossly unfair to a forum on which even I (who came from a very decidedly non-Stickie background) have always felt as if my opinions can get a fair shake – and without seeing any trace of the student politicking immaturity or prima donna behaviour on certain other well-known Irish websites over the years.
I have to add that the debate on the Lost Revolution recently was fantastic, and the quality of this site is really up there with the better US blogs like Crooked Timber. Bravo, and a job well down to the CLR crew.
Give yourself a laugh; Eoghan Harris is on McSavage’s comedy show on RTE 2 tonight at 10.30pm.
Some achievement on McSavage’s part to find a straight man less funny and more pompous than himself.
[...] they thought this blog needed more contributions from different viewpoints. In response, WBS put up a post which reiterated the CLR’s commitment to diversity and contained the following So that said, [...]